Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 124

Tue, 19 Aug 2014

• 1. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Error in Magen Avraham 428 (elazar teitz)
• 7. Re: Halachos pertaining to eating meals and food (Akiva Blum)
• 8. Re: Halachos pertaining to eating meals and food (elazar teitz)
• 9. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A Historical, Perspective (Micha Berger)

On 18/08/2014 6:42 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But if you believe it is a case where chazal tell us to avoid something
> that isn't an immediate and certain cause of danger... You, after all,
> were the one claiming that we don't assur such things.

No, I said that since that tzoraas was already extinct by then, it can't
be the "davar acher" of which MBRA warned us.  And if it *were* that davar
acher, the rishonim would not have brought the warning down lehalacha.
The fact that MBRA did warn of it, and that the rishonim did cite it, shows
that they were *not* talking about an extinct disease, but of an extant,
purely physical one.  "Leprosy" may not be the technical term for it, but
it will do as well as any other.

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

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> But that tzaraas no longer existed by Mar Bar Rav Ashi's day, so
> it can't be ...

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> My point was that the word tzora'as should raise red flags that
> the advice may involve ...

Folks, we're *not* reading Chumash here. I wonder if we're being too
m'dayek on the words. Is it at all possible that the reference is not to
the technical Biblical "tzaraas", but to what the medical community calls
"leprosy"?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The End of the "Made-In-China" Era
The impossible (but real) technology that could make you impossibly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53f22c9bbbe792c9b451ast03vuc

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 04:39:55PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: > My point was that the word tzora'as should raise red flags that
: > the advice may involve ...

: Folks, we're *not* reading Chumash here. I wonder if we're being too
: m'dayek on the words. Is it at all possible that the reference is not to
: the technical Biblical "tzaraas", but to what the medical community calls
: "leprosy"?

Do we have any indication that tzora'as meant anything but the biblical
tzora'as until the KJV and the confusion of the LXX's Greek "lepra"
with the English "leprosy" (Hanson's disease)?

I don't think there is a basis for saying chazal meant someone else
unless we have other examples of them using the term for something else.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 18/08/2014 2:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> I don't think there is a basis for saying chazal meant someone else
> unless we have other examples of them using the term for something else.

Remember MBRA did *not* say "tzoraas".  He said "dovor acher".  It's Rashi
who translates that as "tzoraas", by which he meant whatever people in *his*
day called "tzoraas".

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

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:08:57PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 18/08/2014 2:01 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> I don't think there is a basis for saying chazal meant someone else
:> unless we have other examples of them using the term for something else.

: Remember MBRA did *not* say "tzoraas".  He said "dovor acher".  It's Rashi
: who translates that as "tzoraas", by which he meant whatever people in *his*
: day called "tzoraas".

But that's subject to the same problem. There is no reason to believe
the meaning of the word "tzora'as" was anything but tzora'as in Rashi's
day either. (And it would have to have the same shifted meaning in
the Tur's mileau as well.) I still see no indication that there is
a second meaning of the word, aside from the KJV's confusion.

Getting back to smoking... Whatever disease fish-and-meat is qasheh le-
aside, it is obviously a less common consequence than either lung cancer
or empyasema are from smoking.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

 To my comment,

> As for the MA stating that Rosh Hashana is delayed if the molad takes
> place after 18:00 JMT, which RMY characterized as an error because it
> is true not only after, but also at 18:00, I don't believe it is an
> error. The MA was giving practical rules for determining the calendar.
> A molad occurring exactly at 18:00 happens once in 2096 years. Its first
> occurrence, if I am not mistaken, was Shvat 351; the second, in 2447'; and
> the third in 4543. The next is scheduled for 6639, when the dechiya will
> no longer necessarily exist.

RZev Sero responded:

> Also, isn't it an unresolved machlokes?  My understanding is that in 4543
> there was a split, and some communities delayed RH while some didn't, and
> that we won't know which ones were right until we can ask the members of
> Hillel II's sanhedrin (if then).

     The machlokes was not in 4543, but in 4682. The molad of the following
Tishrei (4683) was on a Tuesday, after noon, but less than 35 minutes and
40 seconds (i.e., 642 chalakim) after noon.  R. Saadia Gaon declared that
Rosh Hashana should thus be delayed until Thursday (to Wednesday, because
of molad zakein, and thus to Thursday because of AD"U).  This necessitated
the Pesach before beginning on Tuesday, and the year 4682, a leap year,
having 385 days.  However, R. Aharon b. Meir, a gaon of EY, contended that
he had a kabbala that molad zakein meant at or after 12:00 and 642
chalakim, so that RH of 4683 should be Tuesday (since the molad was not
zakein), causing Pesach 4682 to be a Sunday, and the year 4682 having 383
days.  He also contended that full authority for determining the calendar
rested with chachmei EY, and chachmei Bavel had no say in the matter.  I
don't know Where RAbM got the 642 chalakim.  In any event, the only opinion
ever quoted in halacha is that of RSG.

     Incidentally, although my mathematics was correct, its relevance was
overstated.  What mattered for the discussion was not a noon molad in
general, but a noon molad Tishrei.  This is far rarer than once in 2096
years. If I am not mistaken, the 12:00 molad for 2447 was actually in
Tishrei 2448 -- before mattan Torah --, and has never happened since, nor
will it for many millennia.  The MA therefore certainly had no reason to
mention "at or after 12:00," since the "at" is irrelevant.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140818/51d8fe0a/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Avodah On Behalf Of elazar teitz via Avodah
Sent: Sunday, 17 August, 2014 9:56 PM
> It should also be noted that the kohanim ate all kodshei kodoshim while
> standing, since they had to be eaten in the Azara, and only kings of
> Dovid Hamelech's dynasty were permitted to sit in the azara.

Tosfos Yoma 25a say that kodshim could, and should, be eaten while sitting
in the azarah.

Akiva

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Akiva Blum <yda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tosfos Yoma 25a say that kodshim could, and should, be eaten while sitting
> in the azarah.

According to one opinion in that Tosfos. According to the other,
they couldn't.

EMT

On 18/08/2014 7:50 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But that's subject to the same problem. There is no reason to believe
> the meaning of the word "tzora'as" was anything but tzora'as in Rashi's
> day either. (And it would have to have the same shifted meaning in
> the Tur's mileau as well.) I still see no indication that there is
> a second meaning of the word, aside from the KJV's confusion.

I don't know where you got the idea that the identification of tzaraas
with leprosy dates to the KJV.  It's in the septuagint, isn't it?  Do
you really think they had no leprosariums in Rashi's day?


> Getting back to smoking... Whatever disease fish-and-meat is qasheh le-
> aside, it is obviously a less common consequence than either lung cancer
> or empyasema are from smoking.

1. Venishmartem isn't about how common the consequence is, but about how
deadly in those cases where it strikes.

2. We can't know that it's at all uncommon unless we establish what "binsa"
means.  Is it a generic term for "fish", or is it a specific species, and
if so which one?  Maybe it is common for people who eat that species with
meat to come down with "davar acher".

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

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:06:45PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: I don't know where you got the idea that the identification of tzaraas
: with leprosy dates to the KJV.  It's in the septuagint, isn't it?  Do
: you really think they had no leprosariums in Rashi's day?

I wrote about this earlier. The word in the LXX is "lepra", which refers
to skin discoloration or scaling. It is the etymological root of the
word "leprosy", but did not mean Hanson's disease. And the pesuqim do
describe forms of lepa for se'eis, sapachas and baheres, but symptoms
that do not resemble Hansons disease.

Nor could the LXX be using the word "lepra" to mean anything but tzora'as
itself, as that's the topic of the pesuqim the LXX is translating!

The KJV borrowed the word lepra and used the English cognate without
paying attention to the difference in meaning. Maybe because they had
no better options. But the KJV that's why so many call tzoraas "leprosy"
in English. But that oddity has nothing to do with mesorah.

But there is no indication 

:> Getting back to smoking... Whatever disease fish-and-meat is qasheh le-
:> aside, it is obviously a less common consequence than either lung cancer
:> or empyasema are from smoking.

: 1. Venishmartem isn't about how common the consequence is, but about how
: deadly in those cases where it strikes.

So? Are you claiming more people died of the not-currently-known effects
of fish-and-meat than today die of the incidences of ephysema and lung
cancer that otherwise wouldn't have occured?

: 2. We can't know that it's at all uncommon unless we establish what "binsa"
: means.  Is it a generic term for "fish", or is it a specific species, and
: if so which one?  Maybe it is common for people who eat that species with
: meat to come down with "davar acher".

Mesoretically, we thought it applied to all fish; veharaayah, look at
pesaq and practice. I find it hard to believe we got it wrong. Emunas
chakhamim, no?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On 18/08/2014 8:51 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 08:06:45PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

>> I don't know where you got the idea that the identification of tzaraas
>> with leprosy dates to the KJV.  It's in the septuagint, isn't it?  Do
>> you really think they had no leprosariums in Rashi's day?
>
> I wrote about this earlier. The word in the LXX is "lepra", which refers
> to skin discoloration or scaling. It is the etymological root of the
> word "leprosy", but did not mean Hanson's disease. And the pesuqim do
> describe forms of lepa for se'eis, sapachas and baheres, but symptoms
> that do not resemble Hansons disease.

Nu, so who said anything about Hanson's disease?  "Leprosy" still means what
it meant in Rashi's day, and in the Septuagint's day, long before Hanson.


> Nor could the LXX be using the word "lepra" to mean anything but tzora'as
> itself, as that's the topic of the pesuqim the LXX is translating!

But "lepra" was a condition that the Greeks recognised and had a word for.
How accurate the translation was is a different matter, but presumably they
translated it that way because *in their day* "tzoraas" was being used for
that condition.


> The KJV borrowed the word lepra and used the English cognate without
> paying attention to the difference in meaning.

Who says there was any difference between the English and the Greek words?
Were the lepers in England sick with a different condition than the ones
in Greece?!


> : 1. Venishmartem isn't about how common the consequence is, but about how
> : deadly in those cases where it strikes.
>
> So? Are you claiming more people died of the not-currently-known effects
> of fish-and-meat than today die of the incidences of ephysema and lung
> cancer that otherwise wouldn't have occured?

No, I'm stating the well-known fact that smoking *never* causes *anyone*
to drop dead, or even to come down with a deadly illness, as crossing an
unsound bridge sometimes does, or as eating binsa with meat apparently did.
It merely *raises the statistical likelihood* of the smoker *eventually*
developing a deadly disease.   When someone falls off a bridge that they
shouldn't have crossed, we know what killed them.  To this day there is
nobody of whom we can say with certainty that smoking caused his lung cancer.



> : 2. We can't know that it's at all uncommon unless we establish what "binsa"
> : means.  Is it a generic term for "fish", or is it a specific species, and
> : if so which one?  Maybe it is common for people who eat that species with
> : meat to come down with "davar acher".
>
> Mesoretically, we thought it applied to all fish; veharaayah, look at
> pesaq and practice. I find it hard to believe we got it wrong. Emunas
> chakhamim, no?

If we don't know which species it is, why take chances?  How do we know it
isn't *that* one, or *that* one, or again *that* one?  And over time the
knowledge that it's a specific fish may have been lost, and people thought
"binsa" was just a generic term for fish.  I don't see why we should have
emunas chachamim that this would not happen; similar things happen all the
time.

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

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> But that's subject to the same problem. There is no reason to
> believe the meaning of the word "tzora'as" was anything but
> tzora'as in Rashi's day either. (And it would have to have the
> same shifted meaning in the Tur's mileau as well.) I still see
> no indication that there is a second meaning of the word, aside
> from the KJV's confusion.

I think the confusion is a lot older than the KJV. According to Wikipedia
(https://en.wik
ipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath#Translations), the Septuagint translated
"tzaraas" as "lepra".

Be that as it may, RMB seems to feel as I and many others do, that it is
ridiculous to assign a medical meaning to a condition which has so many
aspects that are so far removed from physical science. The question I'd
like to ask is: How ancient is this idea?

Where is the burden of proof? RMB seems to feel that as recently as Rashi's
day, the difference between tzaraas and leprosy was as simple and as
well-known as (dare I say it?) the shape of the earth. I'm not convinced. I
suspect that it never even dawned on anyone to classify a malady as either
physical or spiritual. It was all the same. I hear stories sometimes that
this persists even today in some communities, where they seek a purely
spiritual remedy for problems which clearly (to me, at least) need medical
(or other professional) intervention.

There ought to be an objective answer somewhere: Who was the first Torah
authority to point out that tzaraas no longer exists? Or that it is not to
be confused with leprosy? Or that doctors will never find a cure because it
is out of their realm? Or anything of that sort?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Virginia Drivers:
(Aug 2014): New "Rule" Leaves Virginia Drivers Furious!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53f2a717a162a2717599est01vuc

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 01:22:51AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I think the confusion is a lot older than the KJV. According to Wikipedia
: (https://en.w
: ikipedia.org/wiki/Tzaraath#Translations), the Septuagint translated
: "tzaraas" as "lepra".

But look at footnote #4, according to "A Greek-English Lexicon", lepra
refers to a skin discoloration or scaling, and not to any particular
disease. They give other exmples besides the lxx:
    Herodotus Histories 1.138, Hippocrates Aphorisms 3.20 (plural),
    Prorrh.2.43 (pl.), Epid.5.9 (sg.), Morb.1.3 (sg.), Arist.Pr.887a34,
    Theophrastus Characters 19.2, Sud.14, LXX Leviticus 13.2.

...
: Where is the burden of proof? RMB seems to feel that as recently as
: Rashi's day, the difference between tzaraas and leprosy was as simple
: and as well-known as ...

The difference between flesh turning purple and nerves dying vs red or
white raised or indented skin. There is no grounds for confusion as
they aren't similar diseases. Not until KJV or whomever turned lepra
into leprosy. There is really no indication that anyone used the word
tzoara'as for anything but tzora'as. Regardless of the history of using
the word lepra for soemthing other than (or broader than) leprousy.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson

On 18/08/2014 10:51 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> But look at footnote #4, according to "A Greek-English Lexicon", lepra
> refers to a skin discoloration or scaling, and not to any particular
> disease. They give other exmples besides the lxx:
>      Herodotus Histories 1.138, Hippocrates Aphorisms 3.20 (plural),
>      Prorrh.2.43 (pl.), Epid.5.9 (sg.), Morb.1.3 (sg.), Arist.Pr.887a34,
>      Theophrastus Characters 19.2, Sud.14, LXX Leviticus 13.2.

Nu, so that's what "lepra" meant.  And "leprosy" is the same word in English.
What makes you think it didn't mean all those things?


On 18/08/2014 9:22 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
>   Who was the first Torah authority to point out that tzaraas no longer exists?

See http://mechon-mamre.org/i/a316.htm#13
Note "??? ???? *???* ??????" (it *was* a sign and wonder among the Jews)

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

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 10:57:05PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Nu, so that's what "lepra" meant.  And "leprosy" is the same word in English.
: What makes you think it didn't mean all those things?

Again, the number of meanings of the word lepra has nothing to do with
proving that there were multiple meanings to the word tzora'as, before
modern Hebrew. (Although it's not so much that it had a lot of meanings;
it describes abnormal skin, which is a feature of a lot of illnesses.)

Second, the question isn't whether I can show tzora'as did NOT mean
something else. The question is what basis you have to say it did have
another usage (until cross polenization back to Hebrew after the KJV
impacted English speakers' presumptions). You have to give me some motive
to start wondering whether Rashi thought the gemara meant anything but
biblical tzora'as. If there is no evidence of a second usage of the word
until Modern Hebrew, the whole speculation doesn't get started.

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://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.)