Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 160

Wed, 11 Aug 2010

• 1. Re: Ksav Ivri and Ksav Ashuri (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Letaken in Aleinu (SBA)
• 5. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Leshon haKodesh (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Leshon haKodesh (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Ksav Ivri and Ksav Ashuri (Aryeh Herzig)
• 12. Re: Netziv on Monarchy (Ira Tick)
• 13. Re: Transgendering and Halachah (T6...@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Transgendering and Halachah (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Transgendering and Halachah (Ira Tick)

http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n027.shtml#14 is the repost of
an scjm post that I copied here. He based himself on "The Commentator's
Gift of Torah" by Rabbi Yitzchak Sender (RY Skokie).

In Chapter 2, there is a discussion "How was the Torah written" that
discusses the 3 opinions.

the 3 positions are
> 1 The Torah was originally in hebrew and then ezra changed it to
> assyrian script
> 2 The Torah was originally in assyrian script then it was changed to
> hebrew script then ezra changed it back to assyrian
> 3 The Torah was always in assyrian.

> position 1 is held by Mar Ukva and Rabbi Yosi
> position 2 is held by Rabbi Yehuda the prince
> position 3 is held by Rabbi Elazar of modin

> position 1  appears to raise many objections.
> a)... 

My own 2 cents are at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n113.shtml#03>,
including the Radvaz who says the first luchos were in Ashuris, but after the
eigel we only deserved kesav Ivri. I also have a longer discussion of Sanhedrin
21a-22b, and the machloqes mora'im there.

The minim would use kevav Ivri for sheim Havayah perhaps to keep the
shemos issue down to a minimum. But they're minim -- for all we know
they could have just chosen to go bedavqa with the script we eschewed.

I closed my post with:
> 3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final opinion.
> The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim to conclude
> that this is the gemara's maskana.

> The script was always used in sifrei qodesh. Rather, it was only
> popularized for other writing biymei Ezra.

> The Radvaz's resolution would lead to this metzi'us as well, that the
> sacred Ashuris was known to only a few, but given to the masses in Ivris.

> This would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
> rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin is
> discussing how it was given to the rabbim. If understood this way, then
> the reference to Aramis is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
> Aramis and not LhQ, were given a targum. However, no one proposed changing
> the language of the text itself. (What would happen to derashos if that
> really were the proposal?)

> This would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing on the
> wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!

RSM notes that Kesav Ashuris is more likely from "osher" than Assyria, as
it's not a script used in Assyria.

Thinking out loud:
OTOH, Aramaic was the Assyrian language, and Kesav Ashuris was our Aramaic
kesav, so maybe the name reached it by that two-step association.

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

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:06:02AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> T6...@aol.com wrote:
>> BTW a long-running thread on Areivim has been discussing the meaning of 
>> the phrase "lesaken olam" in Aleinu.  I wonder how RZS would now  
>> translate that phrase in view of the fact that "tikun sofrim" surely 
>> refers to "fixing, correcting, improving, emending"?
>
> And therefore?  The root TKN has the same double meaning as the English
> word "fix"...

You said that on Avodah too. I don't know of an instance of "letaqein"
meaning to establish (as in leyaseid or in leqayeim).

Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.

The Gra says the shoresh is /qnh/, that manufacturing and repair are
variants of the same concept. This is on birkhas Avos, when he translates
"Qoneih haKol" as an expression of the same notion as "haGibbor". "The
Repairer of Everything" implies the sefirah of Gevurah, as Chesed would
never had let things get to the point of needing repair.

Brown Driver Briggs (pg 1075) had "taqein" is "become straight", "tiqein"
is to arrance of put right, the pi'el as "to make straight". BDB points
us to the contrase in Qoheles 1:15 "Me'uvas lo yuchan lisqon", which I
would translate "that which is crooked could not be straightened".

The BDB does refer to a translation of "to establish" -- but only when
mentioning the Aramaic cognate. Not the Hebrew word.

>                        .  In Aleinu, the most straightforward translation,
> indeed ISTM the only translation that doesn't require any stretching, is
> "to establish the world under Hashem's sovereignty"....

I think you're stuck on the notion that "be-" means in. However, it
equally means "through the aegis of". E.g. "qadsheinu bemitzvosekha,
vesein chelqeinu beSorasekha... vesamcheinu biyshuasekha".

I would translate it "to repair the world using He Who Sets Limits'
Malkhus".

I don't think there is an appropriate translation for Malkhus here. It's
clear from how the tefillah continues that the connotation of "ein
melekh belo am" is central to what's being said. "Sovereignty", "rule"
and "kingship" do not carry that meaning.

BTW, implied is that the tiqun spoken of in lesaqein olam is in particular
a harmony and holiness brought about through everyone coming together
to serve Him. Not a synonym for communal / political chesed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: Thanks for correcting my error on "Fano".

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

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:45:28AM -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:06:02AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:> And therefore?  The root TKN has the same double meaning as the English
:> word "fix"...

: You said that on [Areivim] too. I don't know of an instance of "letaqein"
: meaning to establish (as in leyaseid or in leqayeim).

: Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
: to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.

Someone showed me off-list that the Rambam and Teimanim have "lesakein
olam", with a kaf, not a quf. He suggested that "takein" does mean
something pretty close to establish.

However, returning to the BDB it means to estimate or measure. E.g.
Shemos 5:11 (bricks) or Yechezqeil 45:11 (volume). With other conjucations
(e.g. takhnis / miskones) meaning proportion.

Maybe the Rambam's peshat relates to planning (takhnit)?

(Since the Gra linked /tqn/ and /qnh/, I checked /knh/ -- but that just
gets us to belittling and kinuyim.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

, "...when the world will be perfected under the sovereignty of the
Almighty"
Singers Siddur Page 143, and I assume the same translation in the Koren
Sacks Siddur.- Martin Brody
++

I know nothing about kabalistic or Lurianic matters. But I had a quick look
in my Otzar Hatefilos siddur where the Iyun Tefila explains it thus:
"Nekaveh lecho shetesakein es haolom be'ofen kezeh - shekol horo'eh yomar
'zos malchus Shakai - velo malchus basar vedam'..."

The other meforshim there also have something to say.

SBA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 1670 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100811/0b51337c/attachment-0001.bin>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 06:06:02AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>> And therefore?  The root TKN has the same double meaning as the English
>> word "fix"...
> 
> You said that on Avodah too. I don't know of an instance of "letaqein"
> meaning to establish (as in leyaseid or in leqayeim).

Did you miss the searches for "tiken" and "Moshe tiken"?  That shows
many examples of "takanos", including many that are clearly not
"repairs" of a broken situation, so you can't explain them that way.



> Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
> to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.

Aleinu doesn't say that Hashem will establish the world, it says that
He will establish it under his sovereignty.  That hasn't happened yet;
He's still only our King, not the world's.


> The BDB does refer to a translation of "to establish" -- but only when
> mentioning the Aramaic cognate. Not the Hebrew word.

How about Koheles 12:9?


>>                    .  In Aleinu, the most straightforward translation,
>> indeed ISTM the only translation that doesn't require any stretching, is
>> "to establish the world under Hashem's sovereignty"....

> I think you're stuck on the notion that "be-" means in. However, it
> equally means "through the aegis of". E.g. "qadsheinu bemitzvosekha,
> vesein chelqeinu beSorasekha... vesamcheinu biyshuasekha".

"vesein chelkeinu besorasecha", at least, means "in", not "through".
As in "chavalim naflu li ban`imim".


> I don't think there is an appropriate translation for Malkhus here. It's
> clear from how the tefillah continues that the connotation of "ein
> melekh belo am" is central to what's being said. "Sovereignty", "rule"
> and "kingship" do not carry that meaning.

Don't they?  "Sovereignty", at least, means that it's acknowledged,
that, as it continues immediately, "kol benei vasar yikre'u vishmecha".

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

Micha Berger wrote:

> Someone showed me off-list that the Rambam and Teimanim have "lesakein
> olam", with a kaf, not a quf. He suggested that "takein" does mean
> something pretty close to establish.

There are those who spell "Tikanta Shabbos" with a kaf.  It seems to
me that the root is KNN.

However, most siddurim have it with a kuf, and once again it means
"set in place", not "repair".

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

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:47:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Did you miss the searches for "tiken" and "Moshe tiken"?  That shows
> many examples of "takanos", including many that are clearly not
> "repairs" of a broken situation, so you can't explain them that way.

Of course they are. Every bit of rabbinic legislation is a repair.

However, qoneih also refers to making something yeish miyeish. See
the Rambam on the discussion between Malkhitzedeq and Avraham on
"Qoneih Shamayim vaAretz" vs "Keil Elyon Qoneih Shamayim vaAretz".

>> Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
>> to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.

> Aleinu doesn't say that Hashem will establish the world, it says that
> He will establish it under his sovereignty.  That hasn't happened yet;
> He's still only our King, not the world's.

That would be a repair, since the world is established already. One might
say "re-establish", but to insist on that is neither provable nor more
similar to "establish" than "repair".

And then there is also the yeish meyeish sense.

>> The BDB does refer to a translation of "to establish" -- but only when
>> mentioning the Aramaic cognate. Not the Hebrew word.

> How about Koheles 12:9?

What about it? Did he improve or establish those parables? For that
matter, how do you establish a parable rather than write it? JPS renders
the end of the pasuq as "set in order".

>>>                    .  In Aleinu, the most straightforward translation,
>>> indeed ISTM the only translation that doesn't require any stretching, is
>>> "to establish the world under Hashem's sovereignty"....
>
>> I think you're stuck on the notion that "be-" means in. However, it
>> equally means "through the aegis of". E.g. "qadsheinu bemitzvosekha,
>> vesein chelqeinu beSorasekha... vesamcheinu biyshuasekha".

> "vesein chelkeinu besorasecha", at least, means "in", not "through".
> As in "chavalim naflu li ban`imim".

Then your list is all broken, in which "be-" shifts meaning in the middle.

In any case, my point was just that both meanings exist, and thus "to repair
the world using the Malkhus of the One Who Sets Limits".

>> I don't think there is an appropriate translation for Malkhus here. It's
>> clear from how the tefillah continues that the connotation of "ein
>> melekh belo am" is central to what's being said. "Sovereignty", "rule"
>> and "kingship" do not carry that meaning.

> Don't they?  "Sovereignty", at least, means that it's acknowledged,
> that, as it continues immediately, "kol benei vasar yikre'u vishmecha".

I'm not going to bother arguing English. Sovereignty doesn't mean by the
will of the people. Malkhus does. Check OED or Marriam-Webster, if it's
important to you. English, unlike Hebrew, simply isn't important enough
to be worth the debate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 03:35:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> However, most siddurim have it with a kuf, and once again it means
> "set in place", not "repair".

So you insist. Bring meqoros is you want to argue against dictionaries.

I would think it's "made", not "set in place", if anything.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:47:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Did you miss the searches for "tiken" and "Moshe tiken"?  That shows
>> many examples of "takanos", including many that are clearly not
>> "repairs" of a broken situation, so you can't explain them that way.
> 
> Of course they are. Every bit of rabbinic legislation is a repair.

How so?  What was broken before?  For instance, when Moshe
established eight mishmarot, what was he repairing?  When he
established the first bracha of benching, what was he repairing?



>>> Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
>>> to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.
> 
>> Aleinu doesn't say that Hashem will establish the world, it says that
>> He will establish it under his sovereignty.  That hasn't happened yet;
>> He's still only our King, not the world's.
> 
> That would be a repair, since the world is established already. One might
> say "re-establish", but to insist on that is neither provable nor more
> similar to "establish" than "repair".

You're not getting it; to establish the world, and to establish it in
His sovereignty are two different things.  It's not a re-establishment,
it's a different thing.  The thing being established is not "Olam",
but "Olam Bemalchus Sha-ai".   At least to me the distinction is clear
and I'm not sure why it isn't clear to others.



>> How about Koheles 12:9?
> 
> What about it? Did he improve or establish those parables? For that
> matter, how do you establish a parable rather than write it? JPS renders
> the end of the pasuq as "set in order".

He composed them.  He caused them to be.  Like legal enactments.


>> "vesein chelkeinu besorasecha", at least, means "in", not "through".
>> As in "chavalim naflu li ban`imim".
> 
> Then your list is all broken, in which "be-" shifts meaning in the middle.

How do you translate it, then?  What is this portion that we are asking
to be given, and how can it be given by means of the Torah?


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

 
From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 


>>  In Aleinu, the most straightforward  translation,
indeed ISTM the only translation that doesn't require any  stretching, is
"to establish the world under Hashem's sovereignty".  I  don't even know
what "to repair the world under Hashem's sovereignty" is  supposed to mean;
to my ear it's gibberish, word  salad.....<<


-- 
Zev  Sero                         



>>>>
 
Didn't you grow up Lubavitch?  Didn't you grow up hearing about the  
kabbalistic concept of the shattered vessels that have to be fixed/repaired  
before Moshiach can come?  Did that all sound like gibberish and word salad  to 
you growing up?
 
_http://www.newkabbalah.com/shev.html_ 
(http://www.newkabbalah.com/shev.html) 
 
--quote--
 
Shevirat ha-Kelim (Breaking of the Vessels) 
 
According to Luria, the ten vessels that were originally meant to contain 
the  emanation of God's light were unable to contain that light and were 
hence either  displaced or shattered. As a result of this cosmic catastrophe, 
the  Sefirot, the archetypal values through which the cosmos was created,  are 
shattered and out of place, and the world within which we reside, is  
composed of the shards of the these broken values.  
It is significant that for the Kabbalists, only 6 of the 10 Sefirot  (from 
Chesed to Yesod) were fully shattered (Malchut,  the final vessel was broken 
partially). Had all of the vessels, including  Keter, Chochmah, and Binah, 
been shattered, the universe would  have been thrown back into the state of 
complete and utter chaos, the  toho and bohu prior to creation.  
As it is, the three highest Sefirot, which represent Will, Wisdom,  and 
Understanding, remained intact; only the six Sefirot representing  the 
spiritual, moral, aesthetic and material values were broken, and are, hence,  in 
need of restoration or repair (Tikkun).
 
 
--end quote--
 
There are a number of Litvaks aboard who would readily call this  
"gibberish" I'm sure, but I would be surprised to hear that coming from  /you/.
 
 
--Toby Katz
==========



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100810/38567ea2/attachment-0001.htm>

Much has been written about this topic. There is even a sefer that came out
two years ago called Ksav Ivri Ksav Ashuri by Rav Zvi Einfeld published by
Feldhheim.

There seem to be two approaches to this issue (based on interpetations of
Sanhedrin 21-22).

1) "Ksav HaNishtavan" (Ezra 4) which can be interpeted to mean the "changed
writing" was revealed by the writing hand on the wall in the time of
Belshazzar.  It was a heavenly signal that henceforth our script will be
Ashuri.

2) Avraham Avinu came from Mesopotamia bringing with him Ksav Ashuri.  Ksav
Ivri was the local way the Canaanim wrote.  Avraham's children adopted the
Ivri for everyday and retained Ashuri for holy writings and the written
Torah.

This may also be the basis of the differences in opinion between Bavli and
Yerushalmi on what letters had miraclous floating centersin the Luchos.
Bavli says the Samech which in Ashuri has a middle part completely
surrounded by the letter.  Yerushalmi says Ayin which, in Ivri, looks like
the English "O", completely surrounded by the letter.

The use of Ivri in writing the Holy Name by the authors of the dead sea
scrolls may have been a mechanism of writing it but avoiding pronouncing it
since, by the time they were written, Ivri was pretty much an unused form of
writing.  It is doubtful that the even the Tzadokim pronounced the Holy Name
outside the Beis HaMikdosh because even the Samaritans (Cuthim) are still
careful not to pronounce it.

As an aside, a number of years ago the Israeli govenment was about to issue
a medal or coin commemorating the archaeological discovery of a silver
scroll in ksav Ivri with Birkas Cohanim.  It was to contain the contents of
the scroll and, on the other side, the same words in our present-day
Ashuri.  Rabbonim protested that  the Holy Name would be written in such a
non-Kadosh fashion.  So, A Heh apostrophe was writtten instead.  But the
protesting Rabbonim had no problem - or perhaps never even realized - with
the Holy Name being clearly spelled out in Ksav Ivri. Isn't it ironic? We
are even careful not to write out the English word G - O - D, and, here, the
Shem HaEtsem is being written exactly as it was written in the Luchos
(according to Yerushalmi) and it was not an issue.  Perhaps if 99.99% can't
read it there is no Kedusha any more?

.............Now that is an interesting Shaaleh for Rabbonim to ponder.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100810/a0074a62/attachment-0001.htm>

So the question remains, which form of government is ideal for a Torah
society, all other things being equal?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100810/59f79f95/attachment-0001.htm>

 
: People who suffer from the delusion that they are "really"  the  opposite 
: sex are at no more risk of suicide than mentally ill  people laboring  
under 
: any other delusion.  Any surgeon who  plays along with this form of  
mental 
: illness by surgically altering  a perfectly healthy person is committing 
a  
: horrendous  crime...[--TK]

Obviously, the Tzitz Eliezer disagrees. Also, the rest of  your paragraph
does not follow from the first sentence. Any mentally ill  person who
was suicidal who could be saved through a mutilating surgery,  perhaps
because the risk of waiting for therapy to work is too greater, I  would
think would be the same din.

Tir'u  baTov!
-Micha



>>>>>
 
 
It isn't a matter of "agreeing" or "disagreeing."    I am not  giving a 
halachic opinion with which he may agree or disagree.   He  gave a psak based 
on "facts" that turned out not to be factual.  It turns  out that transgender 
mutilation surgery does not in fact prevent suicide.   The risk of suicide 
in fact rises slightly after surgery.
 
--Toby Katz
==========



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100810/99639a35/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:09:19PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: It isn't a matter of "agreeing" or "disagreeing."    I am not  giving a 
: halachic opinion with which he may agree or disagree.   He  gave a psak based 
: on "facts" that turned out not to be factual.  It turns  out that transgender 
: mutilation surgery does not in fact prevent suicide.   The risk of suicide 
: in fact rises slightly after surgery.

But without supporting studies showing that the metzi'us a rav would be
ruling on doesn't match that of his pesaq, it's franlky just his assessment
of the facts vs yours. REWaldenberg was the rav of Shaarei Tzedeq Medical
Center. Both his fame as a poseiq and his access to medical knowledge make
me far more inclined to believe his version.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

In a case of complete gender reassignment surgery, where a cavity is created
to mimic that of a woman, would the issur of mishkav zachar apply to the
patient's sexual relationships within the framework of the TE's "chalos?"
Assuming that it would, would "mishkevei ishah" imply the death penalty for
this form of intercourse, even though it is certainly not the form normally
associated with the pasuk?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100810/6cae563c/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 160
***************************************

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..."