Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 61

Wed, 13 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: Taliban Women and More (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim inlastweek's parsha. (hankman)
• 3. Spouse vs. parent (hankman)
• 4. Re: Spouse vs. parent (Liron Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: A question of Yichus (Doron Beckerman)
• 10. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim inlastweek's parsha (Doron Beckerman)
• 11. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim inlastweek's parsha. (hankman)
• 12. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim (Harry Weiss)
• 13. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 15. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Micha Berger)

On 12/06/2012 6:38 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Zev Sero<z...@sero.name>  wrote:
>> In this article he claims (in footnote 7) that the charedi press's
>> "prohibition" on  women's pictures has a basis, and R Yosef Hayim
>> "writes quite strongly against women?s pictures, because men will
>> come to look at them".  He reproduces a page from _Rav Berachot_
>> in support of this claim, but if you go through the page you find
>> that it doesn't even mention this subject, let alone "write strongly"
>> against them, or give a reason.
>
> Try the next page:
> http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1759&;st=&pgnum=150

Ah, that makes more sense.  Yes, that was clearly the page intended.
He writes not about *publishing* women's photographs -- such a thought
probably never occurred to him -- but against women allowing themselves
to be photographed at all, even if they intend merely to distribute the
photos to their friends and relatives.  Of course he wrote this at a
time when photographs were a novelty and somewhat rare; a person might
be photographed once in her life, and a person who receives a photo
would keep it and look at it and give it some sort of chashivus.  This
all seems rather quaint now, when photos are so ubiquitous.


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RMB wrote:
I'm just uncomfortable with this multiplying of nissim that no classical
source bothers mentioning. It's too facile.

CM responds:
I agree. I too would prefer not to proliferate nissim not already in the 
meforshim.  However as I can not see this occurring bederech hateva - I can 
not come up with an alternative. Nissim not being a problem for ma'aminim, 
the real issue is why AFAIK it is not discussed  by the meforshim. Aside 
from the Chezkuni I mentioned in my earlier post, is anyone aware of a 
discussion of this in Chazal or the meforshim?

There is a small philosophical issue here as well. The idea of giving a 
commandment to do something that you can only accomplish through the 
intervention of a nes strikes me as a little strange. (There are various 
well known examples of this like the hakomas hamikdosh by Moshe Rabbeinu) 
Sure, you can say it is your job to do what you can and leave the rest to 
G-d, so I do my hishtadlus to the extent possible and then the rest is out 
of my hands. Still why command me to do something I could never accomplish? 
Maybe the point is just that - to teach us exactly that lesson? (You do 
yours and leave the rest to G-d  --  hishtadlus required but success not 
necessary when not within your capabilities).

RMB wrote:
...3 men couldn't produce in 2 generations enough men to offer 90,000 lambs 
in one afternoon for the Pesach in Gilgal, either.

CM responds:
Again I agree. You are right. The same problem exists for the korban Pesach 
at Gilal at the end of the 40 years. I made a point of the korban Pesach at 
the start of the 40 years because here the problem is in spades - just 3 
kohanim, not 3 generations of kohanim.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster

RMF wrote:
I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that
can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).

CM responds:
Grandparents are also not ?replaceable? but you do not even sit shiva for
them at all. Similarly, an uncle or an aunt are also not replaceable
(assuming the grandparents can no longer bear children or are no longer
living) and one does not sit shiva for them either. It seems to my way of
seeing things, that ?replaceability? does not enter the calculus of shiva.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/ac7f2ef3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Michael Feldstein <
michaelgfeldst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> As long as we're asking, how do you understand only shloshim for a spouse?
>  >>
>
> The usual explanation is that aveilus for parents is 1 year because of
> kibud av ve-em, not because the
> loss is greater than that of a spouse or a child.
> ---------------------------------------
> I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that
> can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).
>
>
I heard once (have no idea where) that the idea is to encourage the
bereaved to be able to move on and find a new spouse. If the shiva was for
a full year, they would be unable to remarry until the full time had passed.

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/06cb71ba/attachment-0001.htm>

On Jun 12, 2012, at 8:30 PM, avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> Like "Binyamin" rather than "Ben Yemin".

That is not a valid analogy. "Binyamin" IS one word.
"Bin Nun" is 2 words and the context is not the same.

On 12/06/2012 8:28 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Here's one you didn't list, from MiShulchan Gavohah:

Surely "Gavoah".

> The yud added to
> Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
> dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
> dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
believed.



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Here's one you didn't list, from MiShulchan Gavohah: The yud added to
> Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
> dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
> dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!
>

I had always heard this idea, but I recently heard another idea that the
yud came from the missing yud in "v'haish Moshe Anav". The shiur said that
when Moshe called him Yehoshua, he was transferring to him the mesorah of
how to be an anayv.

Kol Tuv,

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/ed71aef5/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS writes:


> >AFAIK that's not correct.  The rav must not merely determine that the
> >proposed takanah is not against halacha; his consent is necessary for
> >it to be valid.  If he sees no halachic objection but thinks it bad
> >policy, he can still veto it.
>
>
Just to add to what RZS says, the case upon which the idea that one needs
the approval of an "adam chashuv" namely the Rav of the town, is based on
Baba Basra 9a.  There Rava refused to enforce an agreement between two
(presumably communal) butchers that if either one slaughtered on the other
one's "day", the one whose day it was got the hide.  This is clearly an
agreement that has nothing to do with halacha, but it was struck down
because Rava was in the city, and was an adam chashuv, and he didn't agree
to the deal.


> --
> Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
>
>
Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/cbf439d1/attachment-0001.htm>

>> Who said anything about his signing the papers?  Why is that necessary?
He can refuse to sign the papers if he likes; what will they do to him?
All he has to do is not object when the mother registers the child, and
allow people to make the natural (and halachic) assumption that it's his. <<

That's true, but it still seems complicated. What's he going to do at the
Bris - not make the berachah? Not answer at the Kerias Hashem when the
fellow asks for the name and the father's name? If someone asks "How's your
son?" He has to make sure never to answer "My son's okay." It seems really
difficult not to establish any kind of chazakah for as long as the ex might
ask for child support.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/eac6d201/attachment-0001.htm>

The Meshech Chochmah also points out the miracle involved in hakravas
HaPesach that year.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/0eb9eec1/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
...3 men couldn't produce in 2 generations enough men to offer 90,000 lambs
in one afternoon for the Pesach in Gilgal, either.

CM responds:
Again I agree. You are right. The same problem exists for the korban Pesach
at Gilal at the end of the 40 years. I made a point of the korban Pesach at
the start of the 40 years because here the problem is in spades - just 3
kohanim, not 3 generations of kohanim.

CM reconsiders:
Actually upon reconsideration of what I wrote in my previous post, I now see 
that the Pesach at Gilgal actually could have been possible without a nes. 
While this may or may not be what actually happened, but it is possible to 
imagine even if not likely. So pushing the limits of the likely, if we 
imagine that both Elazar and Isamar married at least four wives (clearly the 
more wives, the less need for nes - so if you want to assume 10 wives then 
the calculation becomes still easier), if we further assume that the wives 
produced children every year, and assume generations of 19-20 years each 
(without the need to push harder to 13-14 years per generation), If each of 
these children  marry at age 18 and also have 4 wives each, and so on ... 
then by about year 20 (over 18 years from year 2) they will have produced 
about (2 X 4 X 18 = ) 144 Kohanim who will all be over 20 years old by the 
time of Gilgal 20 years later plus 2 for Elazar and Isamar in addition to 
the childen of the next generation (who were born in that second year = 8 
plus E & I =10) X 4 = 40 more born in year 20 who will also be 20 at Gilgal. 
Thus at a minimum we have 2 + 144 + 40 = 186 kohanim who will have reached 
the age of 20 by Pesach Gilgal. If we assume 40 people per chabura then 
3,000,000 / 40 = 75,000 KP (ignoring chagigos for now) / 3 for three kitos = 
25,000 KP per kito and / 186 = 135 KP per kohain over the age of 20. This is 
manageable I would think al pi derech hateva (except for space requirements 
which was a nes discussed by Chazal). This assumes that they followed the 
custom (probably not yet in force) that kohanim between the ages of 13 to 19 
did not do the avodah.  So if we double the number of Korbanos for the 
chagigos we get 270 korbanos - still I think within the realm of the 
possible al pi derech hateva.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster

> From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
> Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP89550FEE190498E46E16D0C2...@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59:48PM -0400, hankman wrote:
> : I have a similar problem with the first korban Pesach of the 2nd year
> : bamidbar. You have approx. 3,000,000 people who were mechuyav in the
> : korban divided by however many you assume per chabura, will still leave
> : you with an number in 5 or 6 digits for the number of korbanos Pesach
> : plus all the Chagigos etc. But you only had 3 kohanim to do all this...
>
> RMB wrote:
> There were no qorbanos Pesach in the midbar. By the time kehunah was
> taken away from the bechorim, the next time the qorban is performed is
> in the days of Yehoshua at Giv'as haAralos / Gilgal (Yehoshua 5). It's
> still impossible to imagine there were that many kohanim in the 2nd and
> 3rd generations, so that the 90,000 or so sheep would still mean many
> thousands per kohein.
>
> CM responds:
> You misunderstood me. I agree there was no korban Pesach in the
> Midbar. But there was one exception, that was the first anniversary of
> yetzias Mitzraim, ie., the beginning of the second year in the Midbar,
> two weeks after the hakomas haMishkon. This was the Pesach that those
> who were tamei lemeis complained ?lama nigora? and were then informed
> of Pesach Sheini. This was the Pesach I was referring to in my post ?
> there were but three kohanim at that time.
>
Until Shiloh private Bamot were allowed for some things.   Perhaps they 
were brought on Private Bamot where no Kohen wasw needed.

> I had always heard this idea, but I recently heard another idea that
> the yud came from the missing yud in "v'haish Moshe Anav".

What missing yud?  What makes us think "anav" should have a yud in the
first place?


> That is not a valid analogy. "Binyamin" IS one word.
> "Bin Nun" is 2 words and the context is not the same.

Are they really two words?  Doesn't the makaf make them one word?
And in what way is the context different?  What does Binyamin mean?
"Son of the right".  So how is it different from this?



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

>
>  I had always heard this idea, but I recently heard another idea that
>> the yud came from the missing yud in "v'haish Moshe Anav".
>>
>
> What missing yud?  What makes us think "anav" should have a yud in the
> first place?


The Chumash I have says it's a kri u'ktiv. Written without the Yud but
pronounced with.  Presumably the idea being that since Moshe was an anav,
he didn't want to have to write that sentence, so he was able to remove the
yud, similar to the small alef in vayikra.

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/cb18ab74/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 08:34:33PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The yud added to
>> Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
>> dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
>> dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

> This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
> believed.

But simply cannot be true. The nequdos under discussion are those of the
Baalei Mesorah of Tiveriah. We're talking a group that post-date Chazal
that mostly consisted of Qaraim. There are centuries of written record
with no concept of niqud, the Cairo geniza has examples of earlier forms
of the niqud, etc...

The Bavli system of niqud was in use before that of Tiveriah. Not just
by absence of evidence, but by evidence of use of earlier system. Did
the Amoraim not know something miSinai that the Qaraim in Teveriah had
an Oral Tradition on?

Rashi, refers to a segol as a patach qatan. This shows at least partial
acceptance of the Bavli system, if not in use, its concepts. In that
system of niqud, what we call patach and what we call segol have the same
symbol.

But mequbalim believe in progressive revalation. so what's the big If the
Ari could reveal something min haShamayim that wasn't known until him,
then why does niqud have to be miSinai in order to be "real"? The "only"
problem is asserting the antiquity of those parts of the Tiqunei Zohar
(eg the discussion of tzeirei on 7b). Rashbi is describing symbols from
one of three widespread systems that have no indication of being in use
yet, not any indication of being more accepted amoung Rabbinic Jews than
other options until the rishonim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 06:04:01AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> That is not a valid analogy. "Binyamin" IS one word.
>> "Bin Nun" is 2 words and the context is not the same.
>
> Are they really two words?  Doesn't the makaf make them one word?
> And in what way is the context different?  What does Binyamin mean?
> "Son of the right".  So how is it different from this?

I think the Radaq's answer just shifts the OP's question. Okay, when
it's one *teivah* (even if two *words* connected by a maqaf), we use
"bin". When do we connect the "ben" to the father's name, and when
not? The Radaq says it's length of the name. What about about Chushim,
is he "bin-Dan" or "ben Dan"? (Doesn't appear in Tanach.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On 13/06/2012 9:58 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> The Chumash I have says it's a kri u'ktiv. Written without the Yud
> but pronounced with.

Where do we find "anav" spelt with a yud?


On 13/06/2012 10:37 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 08:34:33PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>>>  The yud added to
>>>  Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
>>>  dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
>>>  dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

>>  This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
>>  believed.

> But simply cannot be true.

Hence the "used to be".  The quoted reason depends on this belief.
If the modern understanding is true, then this reason can't be.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:07:47AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 13/06/2012 9:58 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>> The Chumash I have says it's a kri u'ktiv. Written without the Yud
>> but pronounced with.

> Where do we find "anav" spelt with a yud?

Unless I went down the list too quickly and missed one of the /`nv/
occurances thinking it was yet another "anu", this is the only
occurance of the word in Tanakh in any spelling.

But in tehillim, we do have anavim, with only a yud after the vavm
in:
    The kesiv version of 9:18. Q'ri is "aniyyim", 
    10:17, 22:26, 25:9x2...

So I too fail to understand the mesoretic note.

>>>  This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
>>>  believed.

>> But simply cannot be true.

> Hence the "used to be".  The quoted reason depends on this belief.
> If the modern understanding is true, then this reason can't be.

Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
being miSinai are two different things. Particularly since we're talking
about statements made in the Zohar, and thus are already stated within
the context of progressive revelation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 61
**************************************

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..."