Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 8

Wed, 12 Jan 2011

• 1. Re: Prayer for Air? (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 2. Re: Are there any chemists on Avodah? (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: translation of Na (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Fwd: R chiya raba (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Fwd: worst aveirah (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Refusal to pay, BM 17a (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 7. More on Upsherin - Cutting a Boy's Hair (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: Refusal to pay, BM 17a (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: More on Upsherin - Cutting a Boy's Hair (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Q re last night's RYReisman shiur (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Fwd: R chiya raba (Micha Berger)
• 12. Shabbos Shira (Rich Wolberg)

R' Elozor Reich:
On Mondays and Thursdays we say a short Tefiloh for travellers
in peril, starting "Acheinu Bnei Yisroel". It?prays for?those who are
at sea or on dry land, ?"Bein Bayom, Bein Beyaboshoh".
Since nowadays at any one moment in 24 hours there are many travellers
on planes, should we not add "Bein Bo'avir?"
-------------------


she is over water then they are Bayom; over land, then Bayaboshoh.

KT,
MYG

 
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" _toramada@bezeqint.net_ 
(mailto:toram...@bezeqint.net) 
: 
 
>> The reason I spoke of mud (in a previous post) is b/c we are  talking 
about
Mitzbach Adama.

I find it interesting that despite the  fact that at least in Egypt and
certainly historically elsewhere, building  with bricks and mud (and stone)
was well known, when discussing "Mizbach  Adama", none of the mefarshim
consider that it was literally built from soil.  <<

Shoshana L. Boublil

 
 
 
>>>>>
 
Was it "literally built from soil"?  I thought it was a hollow copper  (or 
maybe brass) block with a copper mesh covering, and that when they  camped, 
they filled the hollow copper block with soil.  
 
 


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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/1a278760/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Mordechai Cohen asked about the meaning of the word "na". Rav Samson
Rafael Hirsch explains this word in several places. I believe that if we
study them carefully, we will get a much deeper appreciation for exactly
what is meant by the "please" and "now" translations. And we will also see
that "raw" is not correct.

I began my research with Matityahu Clark's "Etymological Dictionary of
Biblical Hebrew, based on the commentaries of Samson Raphael Hirsch"
(Feldheim, 1999), which lists six meanings of the root "nun-vav-aleph".

To me, the subtle shades of meaning among those six are difficult to
follow. So instead of me simply quoting them, I researched all of the
pesukim and comments cited by Rabbi Clark there, and I'll share them with
you. Unfortunately, I do not yet have the new translation or Rav hirsch on
Chumash, and so all the below is based on the original English translation
of Isaac Levy, published by Judaica Press.

Rav Hirsch gives these meanings for the root nun-vav-aleph:

1) interrupted motion - Bereshis 5:30

2) to be disturbed, to be interrupted in a movement which has been commenced - Shemos 12:9, Bamidbar 32:7

3) to suffer refusal, denial, to be prevented from carrying out an intention by being refused, denied - Bamidbar 14:34

Here are his explanations of various forms of this root:

"Na" in regards to people:

1) interruption of, or hindering to, the direction of the thoughts or will of another - Bereshis 12:13

2) oppose some existing mood, opinion, tendency of thought or will - Bereshis 15:5

3) slways implies a certain reluctance, some opposition on the part of the person being addressed - Shemos 11:2

"Na" regarding food:

1) half-cooked - Bereshis 5:30, Shemos 12:9

2) half-cooked where the process of cooking is interrupted - Bereshis 12:13

Hiphil verb:

1) haynee - to hinder somebody in his intentions - Bereshis 5:30

2) haynee - to refuse, to deny, not to allow to happen - Bereshis 12:13, Bamidbar 14:34

3) haynee - an interruption, a stopping of the continuation of a vow - Bamidbar 30:6

4) yanee - to interrupt, to disturb - Tehillim 141:5

Noun:

t'nuasi - the refusals I have endured - Bamidbar 14:34

Now for some comments of my own. For example, where did the common translations of "please" and "now" come from?

In Isaac Levy's rendering of Bereshis 15:5, "na" is translated as "prithee"
(i.e., "pray thee", please) in his text of the Chumash, and as "now" when
the pasuk is quoted in the very first line of the perush. But neither of
these appears in the perush where he explains the word itself. There, Rav
Hirsch explains that "na" means "to oppose some existing mood, opinion,
tendency of thought or will." This concept, of trying to change someone's
mind, is neatly wrapped up in the word "please" (or "prithee"). And the
idea of interruption, as Hirsch explains "na" in other peskuim, is neatly
expressed by "now". -- But we see those ideas in "please" and "now" only
AFTER we have studied Hirsch's comments in depth.

Another point: Many of us are accustomed to translate "na" in of Shemos
12:9 (about the Korban Pesach) as "raw", as it appears in the JPS, Koren,
and R' Aryeh Kaplan translations. (And, l'havdil, King James.) Rav Hirsch
would most emphatically disagree, saying that "na" cannot mean something
which is totally uncooked, but refers to something where the cooking began
but was incomplete. And indeed, the ArtScroll Tanach renders it as
"partially roasted", Judaica Press as "rare", and Isaac Levy in Hirsch
here, as "half-cooked".

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Refinance Rates at 2.8%
$160,000 Mortgage $434/mo. No Hidden Fees- 3.1% APR! Get a Free Quote
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d2d236d77730c0fc99st01vuc

<<This explains Rav tanna hu upalig -- if Rav made most of his statements
before that date. Similarly, R' Chiyya Ruba.

But still, my point remains that the CI really speaks of dates of
decisions, not people.>>

again R. Chiya dies before Rebbe. We have no way of knowing when the Mishna
was
finished in Rebbe's lifetime (if indeed there was an official finishing -
some parts seem
to be written after his death). So it would seem that almost all of R.
Chiya;s words
are before the finish of the Mishna.

OTOH it is unlikely we have anything from Rav while he was a talmid in EY
and I would assume everything from Rav was after the finish of the Mishna.
In any case when the gemara says Rav is a tanna and can argue it doesnt seem
to discuss when he said this.

As I questioned once before hand what if R. Yochanan quotes a much earler
tanna
like R Shimon bar Yochai. Is that considered before or after the 2000 years?

I find it hard to imagine that there was a ceremony on RH of year 2000 and a
decision
that we no longer disagree iwth previous generations while last month we
did.

Of course all this assumes that there are no missing years in the calendar
over the Persian rule
of 54 years(?)

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/21f1fa42/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Piquach nefesh does not inherently override Shabbos. Shabbos overrides
Shabbos, and in the case of someone who isn't / doesn't have to be
shomer Shabbos, it's other mitzvos that override Shabbos (mishum eivah
and mipenei darkhei Shalom).>>

1. Do you have a source that pikuach nefesh overrides shabbat for a
non-shomer
shabbat only because of eivah/darchei shalom.

If so it should have practical applications such as if shabbat is hutra or
dechuya
and other differences between a deoraisa and derabban

2. We generally pasken that pikuach nefesh overrides shabbat because of
"ve-chai behem"
and not because that it is better to violate one shabbat to keep many other
shabbatot.
So we violate shabbat even to keep someone alive for a short time when he
might not keep any mitzvot.

...
<<: We have "vechai behem" which says that pikuach nefesh overrides mitzvot
: between man and G-d but doesnt apply always to things that affect other
: human beings

Which implies that all else being equal, mitzvos BALC (bein adam lachaveiro)
are more chamur than mitzvos BALM. QED.>>

I don't agree. G-d tells us that we can violate his laws in order to save a
life.
That doesnt't give us permission to harm someone else to save a life. It has
nothing to
do with what is more chamur.
For teshuva on bein-adam-lashem ones needs vidui for beinadam-lechavero one
needs vidui plus forgiveness from a friend. This is the nature of the sin
and
has nothing to do with more chamur.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/4d23aa10/attachment-0001.htm>

I don't think we're talking about the same case. I'm at the top of 17a
seven lines down, with Rashi's peshat at DH veha-edim me'idim, which I
understand as: [they testify that] in front of us, he [malveh] made a claim
that he [loveh] should pay acc. to the words of BD, and he did not pay
[i.e. refused]. Because he brazenly defied BD in front of them, he is no
longer trusted to say that he [subsequently] paid without edim.

So: no lies, no changing of stories - just recalcitrance against BD, which knocks out his ne'emanus. 

--
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Jan 11, 2011, at 14:36, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> But he doesn't claim he already paid. He says "ein lekha beyadi kelum".
> Then after the eidim, "chazar ve'amar" (shades of another thread), he
> change his story.

The following is from  Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, Minhag Ashkenaz: 
Sources and Roots by Rabbi Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, Synopsis of Volumes I-IV.

The German custom to bring a young boy to the synagogue with a wirnpel
(wrapping for the Torah scroll) has no connection whatsoever to the
practice of the chalaka (the Arabic term for Upsherin) observed by
Sepharadirn and later adopted by many Chasidirn. The custom of holding a
special celebration marking the boy's first haircut developed among these
groups. The celebration takes place at a specific age, usually three. The
festivity is customarily held near the gravesite of a tzadik or in a
synagogue. This custom was unknown in ancient Sephardic and
Ashkenazic communities.

The earliest reports of the chalaka [upsherin] celebration are found 
in accounts
written by Sepharadim early in the period of the Acharonim. Some three
centuries later, we find the first indications that the custom had made its
way into Chasidic circles. The most important source concerning the
chalaka is the account of the celebration in which the Ari-zal is involved.
The details of this story are somewhat vague, and it is unclear whether the
Ari-zal made a chalaka for his son, or whether the account refers to his
disciple, Rabbi Yonatan Sagish. There is also some question as to whether
the Ari-zal participated in Lag Ba 'omer events in Meron after his
kabalistic insights because the custom to conduct a chalaka on Lag
Ba 'omer runs in opposition to the Ari-zal's final ruling that forbade hair
cutting during the orner period.

Furthermore, the custom of the chalaka has given rise to some questions as
to the propriety of hair cutting at a gravesite or synagogue, which might
constitute an infringement upon the sanctity of the site. Some have also
questioned the permissibility of haircutting on Lag Ba 'omer, during bein
ha-rnetzarirn (the three weeks before Tisha B' A v) or during Chol
Ha 'rno 'ed. Yet another concern was the immodest behavior that
occasionally accompanied this event. :Most Sephardic and Chasidic rabbis
applauded, or at least defended the practices observed in their circles,
though there were those who forbade The custom in this manner.

Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik of Brisk (1889-1960) disapproved of
bringing children to rabbis on their third birthday for the chalaka, claiming
that this practice "has no reason or basis." He noted that there are sources
indicating that one should introduce the child to matters of Torah at the age
of three, but none that involve haircutting. Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael
Kanievsky [the "Steipler Ga'on," (1899-1985)] also opposed this practice,
and would send away parents who brought their children to him for the
chalaka haircut.

The tendency among Ashkenazi communities to refrain from this practice
stems, according to one view, from the concern that the chalaka
transgresses the prohibition of imitating pagan practices. Cutting a child's
hair at the age of three was a well-known custom among several nations in
ancient times, and thus observing this practice may constitute an imitation
of pagan ritual. Some, however, dismissed this argument, claiming that to
the contrary, the chalaka perhaps began as an ancient Jewish practice
which was later adopted by the gentiles. There are some older customs,
originating in the times of Chazal and the Ge'onim, such as fasting on Erev
Rosh Hashana and the ceremony of Kapaprot on Erev Yom Kippur which
were opposed by some rabbis since they feared that their origins could be
found in pagan rites. In any event, although some communities accepted
this custom, Ashkenazi communities \yere never aware of such a practice.
They did not receive this tradition from their forebears, and they found no
mention of it in the writings of the Rishonim.

The ancient tradition among Ashkenazi communities was to cut a boy's
hair at a very young age. In fact, during the times of Chazal, parents would
cut an infant's hair not long after birth, and they even permitted cutting a
baby's overgrown hair on Chol Ha 'mo' ed. In the times of the Rishonim,
too, boys' hair in Ashkenaz was cut already within the first several months
after birth. The phenomenon of children with overgrown hair simply did
not exist in Germany, and a boy with overgrown hair would have been
mistaken for a girl.

The custom of chalaka was never accepted in Ashkenazic countries or
other regions in Western Europe, not even among the Sephardic
communities in these areas. The practice earned acceptance in Eastern
Europe among certain Chasidic circles, but only in later generations.
Among other circles, boys' hair was cut when they began speaking, and no
special affair was held to celebrate the event.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110112/9aa0e23e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 08:15:01AM -0500, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
: On Jan 11, 2011, at 14:36, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > But he doesn't claim he already paid. He says "ein lekha beyadi kelum".
: > Then after the eidim, "chazar ve'amar" (shades of another thread), he
: > change his story.

: I don't think we're talking about the same case. I'm at the top of 17a
: seven lines down, with Rashi's peshat at DH veha-edim me'idim...
: So: no lies, no changing of stories - just recalcitrance against BD,
: which knocks out his ne'emanus.

This is the gemara Rashi discusses:
    ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?"? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????
    ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????
To transliterate (which is hard to read for this length of text, but not
everyone can figure out how to reach a copy that has Hebrew letters:
    Amar Rabba b"b Chanah, a"R Yochanan:
    "Maneh li beyadekha"
    Vehalah omer: "Ein lekha beyadi kelum"
    Veha'eidim mei'idim oso sheyeish lo [<- Rashi's dibur hamaschil]
    Vechazar ve'amar: "parati" [<- chazar ve'amar = he changes his story]
    Huchzaq kafran le'oso mamon

I see the gemara saying that the nit'an starts out saying "I don't owe
anything" (ein lekha beyadi kelum) and then he changes it (chazar) to
"I paid the money". The story is consistent, but there is a shifting in
how much he's willing to admit to.

I think that had he actually lied, we would wonder about his neemanus
in future cases. Not sure about that. But here he didn't; he decided to
omit a fact that he later concedes (that yes, there was a loan) -- once
it comes out in testimony.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 09:17:24AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> The following is from  Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, Minhag Ashkenaz:  
> Sources and Roots by Rabbi Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, Synopsis of Volumes 
> I-IV.

> The German custom to bring a young boy to the synagogue with a wirnpel
> (wrapping for the Torah scroll) has no connection whatsoever to the
> practice of the chalaka (the Arabic term for Upsherin) observed by
> Sepharadirn and later adopted by many Chasidirn...

I would have interepreted the data this way:

There was an old inyan to celebrate the transition from babyhood to
childhood, the boy being ba liydei chinukh in his first mitzvos.

In Germany, this evolved into a minhag involving a wimpel.

In the Middle East (and from there to Mequbalei Tzefat to Chassidim)
it got conflated with the chaluqa. Particularly since they were able to
find Jewish meanings in having a first haircut at 3 -- which is where
Mequbalei Tzefat play a significant role.

We have a number of minhagim that we found meaning to that probably were
at one time assimilations from the surrounding religion:

Carnivale and its costumes is usually around Purim time.

Whitsun (White Sun[day]) was a pagan holiday celebrating the return
of grass to the fields, and thus the resurgance of milk production in
the spring. Xianity built on top of it a holiday marking 7 weeks from
Easter. In Medieval Germany, Whitsun was marked with bringing grass into
the home and eating dairy products.

Yes, I know the reasons generally given for the resulting minhagim. I
would suggest that's what made them into minhagim. That, and the general
forgetting of the historical origins.

And if that mechanism is okay for Purim costumes and milchig on Shavuos,
why not for Upsherin too? Just because it's not /my/ minhag??? Or is
it more about a fear that Minhagei America and EY are emerging, and
our own community's minhag appears to be losing this particular battle
for permanence?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 11:04:19AM -0500, Poppers, Michael wrote:
: This past motzoei Shabbos, RYReisman... quoted Rabbeinu Bachyei on a
: rafeh evoking l'shon rakkah & a malei evoking l'shon qasheh (re
: [degeishim]) and re his'or'rus (re [dots on top of words in Chumash]))
: and then spoke of the "oneness" of the n'qudah.
...
: ... if the n'qudah represents "oneness," shouldn't words which represent
: how H' operates accordingly _have_ d'geishim rather than be rafeh?

I think there is a more fundamental problem that leads to RMP's question.
Rafeh is in contrast to qasheh. Rachamim is not in contrast to Yichud.
Thus, RMP's observation: when one is speaking of Hashem acting bemidas
harachamim, one can argue that both rafeh should be used for Rachamim
and the dageish should be used for Unity.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 12:40:21PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> But still, my point remains that the CI really speaks of dates of
:> decisions, not people.
: 
: again R. Chiya dies before Rebbe. We have no way of knowing when the Mishna
: was finished in Rebbe's lifetime (if indeed there was an official finishing -
: some parts seem to be written after his death). So it would seem that
: almost all of R. Chiya's words are before the finish of the Mishna.

If this were so, he would be a tanna, not an exceptional amora. Most of his
words must have been after the misnhah

...
: I find it hard to imagine that there was a ceremony on RH of year 2000 and a
: decision
: that we no longer disagree iwth previous generations while last month we
: did.

I'm not asking based on what you or I find more reasonable or imaginable.
I'm asking about how the CI understand it.

One coudl rephrase the problem underlying my question about R' Chiya as
the fact that I can't imagine this either, and yet the CI says it. So,
I want to understand what the CI means, and how it allows for throwbacks
like R' Chiyya or Rav.

: Of course all this assumes that there are no missing years in the calendar
: over the Persian rule of 54 years(?)

I don't think it has to, because the CI isn't claiming the 2000 years
is precisely from 2000 AM to 4000 AM.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

  "??????? ???, ???????? ???, ??????? ??????-?????????????"  Psalms 105:2
  "Sing unto Him, make melody unto Him; Speak of all His marvelous works."

Interestingly the verse has singing followed by melody prior to "speaking."
Rav Kook zt"l describes this as three stages. The first stage is shirah
(song) which is an initial flash of insight not fully developed. The second
is zimrah (music) expressing our inner emotions and feelings of gratitude.
And the third is sicha (speech) which is contemplative discourse.

As a chazzan, I see it a bit differently. Before we can have the ability to
speak, we need the foundation of individual singing. Next, we add
instruments in order to bring that singing to a higher level, and only at
that point, can we speak (intelligently) of "all His wonders." In other
words, without the emotion as our foundation, we can't really reach the
optimum level and intensity of speech. Before a little baby can speak, he
or she makes all sorts of noises and song. In order to study Torah, we must
have the chant. And as the Beis Hamikdash had all types of musical
instruments, it gave the emotion for the sicha. 

May the song we sing have the exalted melody with which to bring us to the quintessential sicha.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110112/a54c6f68/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 8
*************************************

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..."