Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 109

Thu, 17 Jul 2014

• 1. Re: shabbat in Alaska (Micha Berger)
• 2. stable boy (saul newman)
• 3. Re: midianite survivors (Zev Sero)
• 4. shabbat in Alaska (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: shabbat in Alaska (Eli Turkel)
• 6. The case for a flat earth (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Earliest rabbinic reference to Yehudit (Tamar Weissman)
• 8. Re: midianite survivors ()
• 9. Re: midianite survivors (Micha Berger)
• 10. flat earth (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: midianite survivors (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Location of Midian (Avi Goldstein)
• 13. Re: Location of Midian (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:02:23PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: > If Rabbeinu Tam were to insist the world were a flat circle, it would
: > be for ideological reasons, not ignorance of the science.

: Of course I have no way of knowing RT's motivations.

But we can eliminate causes. The literate subset of the surrounding
culture accepted the world was a spheroid for well over a millenium,
and in his day they were arguing about the diameter -- not questioning
whether it was in 3D.

So, it could not have been a lack of exposure to what we now know to be
the truth.

: Prof. Sternberg assumes that in any case it was strictly a perush on
: the gemara and never meant as halacha...

Or this line was meant lehalakhah, but the explanation was peirush, and
not his own reason for accepting that as the halakhah.

I can't take sides on what RT believed. He could be explaining chazal in
their own terms, not asserting his personal beliefs. He could just be
using their wording, like our still speaking of "sunrise" without being
geocentrists.

Our earliest source for RT is 300-400 years later, the Shitah Mequbetzes.
We can't assume to much based on exact wording.

: (1) We have no statement prior to RT that holds like this...
: RT was very insistent on keeping minhag and it is unlikely he would
: change such a fundamental minhag as the time shabbat starts.

And yet, this is unavoidable.

3/4 mil vs 4 mil can't be reduced to a small change. We aren't talking
about Roger Bannister running the 4 min mil.

The only way to preserve RT's predeliction for mimetic tradition (minhag
yisrael, puq chazi) would be to say that he was making a difference due
to metzi'us, not theoretical pesaq.

But I showed the math doesn't work on that, either.

Unless he knew the world was round, underestimated the circumferance,
and therefore computed the wrong ratio in longest (tequfas Tamuz) sha'os
zemanios from the geonic lattitudes to their own.

: 2) His student R Eliezer Mi-metz is that the other end of the spectrum
: that Bein Hashmashot begings before sunset
: and ends with sunset. It is unlikely that a talmid and rebbe would have
: such extreme positions on such a basic halacha

Same problem. The smallest plausible mil would make for significant
differences. Actually, more so ... R Tam vs the geonim is a 3-3/4 mil
difference in tzeis, vs REmM he's the full 4 mil later.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

http://shaashuim.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/a-methodologica
l-point-in-reading-aggadeta/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140716/24d1c57b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 16/07/2014 11:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:01:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Where do you see that Yisro was from Africa?  On the contrary, it seems
> : that his home was not too far from Mt Sinai, since Moshe took his sheep
> : there.
>
> "Ki ishah kushis laqach".

Rashi gives the pshat.  She was not literaly a Kushis.


> And in the Medrash, Moshe passes through Midyan
> (and meets Tziporah) on his way from Kush to Mitzrayim.

Does it?  Why would he be on his way to Mitzrayim?  He thought he was
still wanted there.  If he spent time in Kush and left, he would have
gone somewhere that *wasn't* Mitzrayim.



> Chavaquq 3:7 lists the two countries together, which doesn't require they
> be adjacent, but would explain it.

Kushan, not Kush.


> Mt Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally. It would not be the only time
> for the medrash to assert it went to meet somone.

If there were a reason to suppose so.  But pshat seems to be that it was
within a normal shepherding range from Yisro's home.  And the Ramban at
the beginning of Yisro uses this to explain how Yisro came "to the desert
where [Moshe] was camped, to Hashem's mountain".  He says Har Sinai is between
Refidim and Midian, and is on the edge of Midbar Sin.  Refidim is in Midbar
Sin.   So Yisro came to that desert, to Har Sinai, and sent word to Moshe
that he was coming.



-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond

<<This is not consensus among historians, regardless of what we might
think of what Jews in particular knew. The learned among Xians amongst
whom Rabbeinu Tam lived certainly did not think the world was flat.>>

Independent of this issue there is a debate among historians about the
amount of interchange of knowledge between the Jews and the Xtian community
during the early middle ages.
Thus for example the yeshivot of the Baale Tosafot arose at abouit the same
time as the universities which have much in common. Is there any influence
one direction or the other - unknown.

BTW those modern groups who insist that we keep Judaism "pure" without any
foreign influence would be very disturbed at Micha's suggestion that
Rabbebu Tam knew of a spherical earth because the leraned among Xians knew
from ancient sources. Of course many other Rishonim mainly in Spain and the
Provence knew about a spherical earth from Arab sources.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140717/52bfbdf7/attachment-0001.htm>

>
>
>
> <<But we can eliminate causes. The literate subset of the surrounding
> culture accepted the world was a spheroid for well over a millenium,
> and in his day they were arguing about the diameter >>
>
There are proofs that Rashi thought the world was flat. Not surprising that
most Asahkenazi rishonim thought so also

>
>
> : (1) We have no statement prior to RT that holds like this...
> : RT was very insistent on keeping minhag and it is unlikely he would
> : change such a fundamental minhag as the time shabbat starts.
>
> <<R Elizer Mi - Metz -  The smallest plausible mil would make for
> significant
> differences. Actually, more so ... R Tam vs the geonim is a 3-3/4 mil
> difference in tzeis, vs REmM he's the full 4 mil later. >>
>

Again Sternberg's argument is that if this is a theoretical argument then
talmid and rebbe can argue
even from one extreme to another. However, if it is an extremely practical
Halacha it is unlikely
that Jews in France practiced 2 extreme shitot especially since Rabbenu
didn't like making changes in customs
and there is no record of such a shitah beforehand.

Note that with regard to Refillin it is again not clear that anyone
fdollowed RT in this regard in his days. Besides in that case
the opinion was well known before RT.

As to the flat 72 minutes, making them zemaniot changes them according to
the season not much according to the latitude
which is the serious problem. The idea of changing 72 minutes to angles of
the sun below the horizon is due to Minchat Cohen
(Abraham Cohen Pimentel (died March 21, 1697) rabbi in Amsterdam centuries
later.
This was done to indeed account for a global earth within the shitah of RT


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140717/9d9afdb4/attachment-0001.htm>

> See Gilyonei HaShas to Shabbos 75a d.h. Minayin Shemitzvah (at
> http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22172&;pgnum=28) who deals
> with this issue and brings the evidence that it was known to Chazal and
> many Rishonim that the earth is spherical. As the counter-evidence in
> the works cited by RET is largely based on later, erroneous sources and
> contrived extrapolation, I don't feel I need to respond to them.
> V'ha'me'ayain yivchar.

First I thank RYGB for this source which I did not know.

However, I was completely confused by RYGB's reading of this Gilyonei
HaShas. He explicitly brings the Shvut Yaakov who understood trhe gemara
to believe in a flat earth against "modern science".

In fact Gilyonei HaShas claims that the Gra also did not believe the world
was spherical (astounding at that time). The Gilyonei HaShas brings the
gemara in AZ that RYGB quoted. Otherwise I did not see anyting beyond
what RYGB has already brought. He does not seem to discuss the gemara in
Pesachim which IMHO is a much stronger proof than the gemara in Chagiga.

To be honest I did not look at the sources Gilyonei haShas quoted as I
am not familar with them and he gives no marei mekomot (sorry I am not
an expert in all of Zohar). Thus the erroneous sources that argue for
a flat earth include Shvut Yaakov and the Vilna Gaon, not bad company.

In addition I again argue that RT held the earth to be flat (for whatever
reason, I dont disagree with Micha that there may have been motives beyond
reality). IMHO (and Prof. Sternberg) this follows from his statement
that Rebbe is correct against the sages of the world (noted in Gilyon
HaShas of R. Akiva Eger Pesachim 94b) and even more so from the perush
that there is a second sunset at a flat 72 minutes not accounting for
latitude, BTW Sternberg makes the interesting comment that at the second
sunset of RT the sky is completely dark in many parts of the globe. Since
mechanical clocks had not yet been invented there was in fact no way to
establish when the 72 minutes had passed.

This was later "corrected" by Minchat Cohen.He seems to agree that RT has
no basis in fact but argues that nevertheless the halacha is like RT.
He introduced the idea of the angle of the sun below the horizon. How
far the sun should be below the horizon for havdala is debated with 2
common opinions being 16.1 and 19.8 degrees. There is no evidence that
this was known to RT hundreds of years earlier.

In any case some variation of this Minchat Cohen is accepted for the
modern version of psak according to RT. It needs to be modified since
according to this there is no dusk during parts of the year (according
to RT) far north including important Jewish communities such as London,
Paris, Antwerp (according to both versions of RT).

Interestingly the latitude of Vilna is 54.6833 deg N. According to the
tables in Leo Levi there is no 72 minute dusk from May 22 to July 27 !

-- 
Eli Turkel

Shalom,
Just checking this footnote for accuracy:

The apocryphal Book of Judith, where the tale first
surfaces, has Nevuchadnezzar as the enemy king, with Holofernes as his general.
The legend is entirely absent from early rabbinic literature, surfacing first in
the 12th c CE (see Tosaphot Pesahim 108b). In that reference, Judith
is cited as an example of female heroism in the battle against the Hellenistic
Syrian threat from the period of the Maccabean revolt.?

Thanks in advance!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140716/0cf45132/attachment-0001.htm>

From Toby Katz
 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


: Where do you see that Yisro was  from Africa?  On the contrary, it seems
: that his home was not too far  from Mt Sinai, since Moshe took his sheep
: there. [--RZS]

"Ki ishah  kushis laqach". And in the Medrash, Moshe passes through Midyan
(and meets  Tziporah) on his way from Kush to Mitzrayim. Thus leading me to
conclude  there was an Eretz Midyan between Mitzrayim and Kush, where the
people tended  to look Kushian. ....
Mt Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally. It would  not be the only time
for the medrash to assert it went to meet  somone.


Micha  Berger           
mi...@aishdas.org         





>>>>
 
Rashi says that Tzipporah was referred to an "isha kushis" as a euphemistic 
 way of saying she was beautiful -- so beautiful that her beauty was as  
undeniable as the blackness of a Kushi.  (Rashi says that Miriam was  
criticizing Moshe for separating from Tzipporah.)  Whether you  find Rashi's answer 
satisfactory or a bit of a stretch, his question is  obvious:  why would 
Miriam refer to Moshe's wife as a Kushi when we know  that Tzipporah was a 
Midianite woman -- and Kush and Midian are not the same  people at all!
 
As for the idea that "Mt. Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally" --  
unless you have a source for this, you can't say it.  You can't make  up your 
own medrashim on the grounds that there are other, similar,  medrashim.
 
The most straightforward reading of "ki isha kushis lakach" -- without  
Rashi, and without speculative medrashim -- is to understand that Moshe had  
recently taken a second wife, a Kushi wife, in addition to Tzipporah, and that 
 Miriam was criticizing him either for taking a foreign wife or for  taking 
a second wife.
 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140717/15d622e7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:10:19AM -0400, via Avodah wrote:
: Rashi says that Tzipporah was referred to an "isha kushis" as a euphemistic 
: way of saying she was beautiful -- so beautiful that her beauty was as  
: undeniable as the blackness of a Kushi.  (Rashi says that Miriam was  
: criticizing Moshe for separating from Tzipporah.) ...

I'm not sure that's peshat, though. Rashi invokes gematria (kushis = yefas
mar'eh). His source (not for the gematria part) is the Sifri and MQ 16b.

: As for the idea that "Mt. Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally" --  
: unless you have a source for this, you can't say it.  You can't make  up your 
: own medrashim on the grounds that there are other, similar,  medrashim.

This is mostly irrelevant, as Sinai would be about as far from the Jordanian
Midyan as from a land between Mitzrayim and Kush. However, I do recall such
a medrash; I phrased it hypothetically because my search for where the
magid shiur got it from failed.

: The most straightforward reading of "ki isha kushis lakach" -- without  
: Rashi, and without speculative medrashim -- is to understand that Moshe had  
: recently taken a second wife, a Kushi wife, in addition to Tzipporah...

In the middle of the desert?

Actually, the IE says it refers to Moshe's first wife, the daughter of
his predecessor as King of Kush. Which again, was near Midian, or else
he wouldn't have ended up at Tzipoorah's neighborhood well.

No matter how you slice it, the logic of the narrative is that Tzipporah
and Kush were on the same side of Egypt. Moshe was in Kush and near
Tzipporah, and it's unlikely he went through Mitzrayim to get from one
to the other.

What I'm confused by is why people find it such an outrageous idea to
think that Midian had control of two unconnected pieces of territory.
I didn't think it would warrant so much debate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

I just saw that the Shvut Yaakov states that the Rambam used Greek
astronomy for his "kiddush hachodesh" (uses a spherical earth) which is
different than the astronomy of the Gemara (uses a flat earth). Hence there
is no mitzva in learning the hilchot haRambam on kiddush Hachodesh !!

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140717/fee918e3/attachment-0001.htm>

On 7/16/2014 10:45 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:01:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>: Where do you see that Yisro was from Africa?  On the contrary, it seems
>: that his home was not too far from Mt Sinai, since Moshe took his sheep
>: there.

> "Ki ishah kushis laqach". And in the Medrash, Moshe passes through Midyan
> (and meets Tziporah) on his way from Kush to Mitzrayim...
> Chavaquq 3:7 lists the two countries together, which doesn't require they
> be adjacent, but would explain it.

Midyan was probably centered around Medina in Arabia.  Which is right 
across the Dead Sea from Ethiopia.

> Mt Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally. It would not be the only time
> for the medrash to assert it went to meet somone.

I'm not really sure how to respond to that, other than to say that 
Midrash is Midrash.

Lisa

Pinpointing the location of Midian seems exceedingly difficult. It was
certainly not in Africa, as maintained by Micha Berger. Rashi states that
the Moabites went to Midian for advice because Moshe had lived in Midian
and so the Midianites might therefore know how to battle him. Clearly
Yisro's Midian and Bilaam's Midian are one and the same, at least according
to Rashi.
The Torah intimates that Midian and Moav were neighboring countries, and we
know Moav is located east of Israel. North of Moav is Ammon, then the lands
of Sichon and Og. South of Moav is Edom. This would lead us to think that
Midian was east of Moav.
Yet this supposition generates significant questions:
The Torah tells us that Moshe herded Yisro's sheep. He took them to
Choreiv, which is Har Sinai. Where, though, is Har Sinai? If it is in the
southern Sinai, as conjectured by many, it would be a couple of hundred
miles from Midian. Moshe's purpose in shepherding at Har Sinai was so that
he did not graze the sheep on private land. Did he have to travel hundreds
of miles to do so?
Perhaps, then, Har Sinai is not in Sinai, but in what is today Saudi
Arabia. This is much closer to Midian, but other questions would arise. It
would mean that when Aharon came to greet Moshe upon his return, the
meeting taking place at Har Sinai, Aharon traveled hundreds of miles, from
Egypt to Saudi Arabia, to do so. Seems highly unlikely. It would also put
in question where the Israelites crossed Yam Suf. Not only that, but to get
to Saudi Arabia from Egypt, there are actually two bodies of water to
cross, because the Red Sea surrounds the southern Sinai on all sides.
Crossing into Saudi Arabia by land would be equally problematic. It would
mean that the Israelites crossed through modern-day Eilat, which is
probably the Torah's Etzion Gever.
First of all, this would mean that when bnai Yisrael passed through Etzion
Gever during their 38 years of wandering (as mentioned in Parshas Devarim),
they were passing through a second time. Seems a bit odd. Further, it would
mean that they literally passed right by Eretz Yisrael on their way to Har
Sinai. The Torah tells us (Parshas Beshalach) that Hashem took the Jews in
a roundabout way, avoiding Eretz Pelishtim. Yet if the Israelites went
through Etzion Gever, it would mean that they indeed were right near Eretz
Yisrael.
I find this all very puzzling.
Avi Goldstein
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140717/ca49cc59/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 01:41:51PM -0400, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
: Pinpointing the location of Midian seems exceedingly difficult. It was
: certainly not in Africa, as maintained by Micha Berger. Rashi states that
: the Moabites went to Midian for advice because Moshe had lived in Midian
: and so the Midianites might therefore know how to battle him. Clearly
: Yisro's Midian and Bilaam's Midian are one and the same, at least according
: to Rashi.

All this started when I said the Midianim were numerous enough to have
sub-tribes (eg the Keini) and two population centers big enough to
be called "Midian".

I wasn't saying they were two separate peoples. And with nomadic or
seminomnadic tribes, what one region knows, the other is likely to.
Mixing between populations would be very common.

Positing two Midyans makes it easier to deal with RAG's other
questions.

> Clearly Yisro's Midian and Bilaam's Midian are one and the same,
> at least according to Rashi.

And according to Rashi (quoting Chazal), Yisro, Bil'am and Iyov
worked together in Par'oh's court. None of which rules out a
nomadic people who had two "base camp" countries at either end
of their usual routes. In fact, it would explain their presence
in Mitzrayim quite well.


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 11:47:10AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: On 7/16/2014 10:45 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:>On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:01:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:>: Where do you see that Yisro was from Africa?  On the contrary, it seems
:>: that his home was not too far from Mt Sinai, since Moshe took his sheep
:>: there.

:>"Ki ishah kushis laqach". And in the Medrash, Moshe passes through Midyan
:>(and meets Tziporah) on his way from Kush to Mitzrayim...
:>Chavaquq 3:7 lists the two countries together, which doesn't require they
:>be adjacent, but would explain it.

: Midyan was probably centered around Medina in Arabia.  Which is
: right across the Dead Sea from Ethiopia.

Which wouldn't make them near synonyms, as we'de expect with a navi's
potetic doubling. Also, the Eastern Midian is likely closer to the route
taken by BY than Medina is.

:>Mt Sinai may have met Moshe supernaturally. It would not be the only time
:>for the medrash to assert it went to meet somone.

: I'm not really sure how to respond to that, other than to say that
: Midrash is Midrash.

As I said, the whole topic is moot, since the Sinai would have been
out of the way regardless of whether speaking of a country in Arabia
or the Sudan / Ethiopia region.

The whole idea that Moshe spent much of his life in Kush is also aggadic
narrative (in both Sifra and Bava Qama), as well as appearing in the
pseudepigraphal Chronicals of Moshe. Which was probably Josephus's source
Ant 2:10.2, because both name the Ishah Kushis as Tarbis.

(The Sefer haYashar (1552) has a long bit about Moshe's days in Kush
in ch. 73 onward, in which his wife, the widow of his predecessor king
Kikiah, is named Adoniah. And in ch 25, is has the Midionites living
to the east of Kush, although one could say that means in Arabia. But
I don't know the value of the work even qua medrash. Going back to
real sources...)

But if you assume that less fantastical medrashim are to be taken as
historical (I don't consider that a rule, but you might), you would take
the tanna's and gemara's account of Moshe's time in Kush as historical.
And Moshe's trip from Kush to Midian would make it really unlikely the
only route between the two was quite long and ran through Mitzrayim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

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

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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



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


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


***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)