Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 149

Thu, 06 Nov 2014

• 1. Re: 1Shmuel 30:30 (Michael Poppers)
• 2. Re: Re Shmuel 1 30;30 (David and Esther Bannett)
• 3. Re: heter mechira - lo techanem (Zev Sero)
• 4. Rambam on Torah vs Other Truth (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Geirut (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Geirut (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: re'ach (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Sons of Noach (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: The Sons of Noach (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: re'ach (Zev Sero)
• 11. May a Doctor Risk Their Life to Aid Others? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Known Segula? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Oldest Sefer Torah (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Oldest Sefer Torah (Eli Turkel)

[Take 2, with URL to image. -micha]

In Avodah V32n147, RASacks responded to RShYScher:
> The Koren Tanach has b'Chor Ashan. <
The Aleppo Codex (seen via URL http://www.aleppocodex.org/newsite/index.html)
has "b'Vor-Ashan".
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/bVorAshan.png>

The Keter has Bor ashan as does the Leningrad manuscript.  You can see a 
photograph of the Keter on the internet by going to Aleppo codex.


bivrakha,

David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141103/55c0979a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/02/2014 03:35 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> I just heard today in a shiur that Rav David Lau (chief rabbi) found
> this year a ger toshav to sell the land to for shemittah thus
> overcoming the problem of lo techanem (probably the major objection to
> heter mechirah). It seems this ger toshav has a Jewish father and a
> non-Jewish mother and undertook to keep the 7 mitzvot of Bnei Noach.

This would also obviate the concern I have had for a while, that instead of
selling the land back at the end of the year, the Saudi king will make him
a better offer.

I still wonder whether the farmers who join the sale realise that he has the
right to keep the land and pay them its value, and whether they really agree
to that.  With chametz there's no question that everyone would be delighted
for the goy to keep the chometz and pay for it; with farmland I find it
difficult to imagine that everyone feels the same way about it.  People
are emotionally attached to their land, and don't usually want to sell it,
even for a fair price, until they're ready to retire.

It came up here in the past that the Rambam's notion of religion is so
bound to finding the truth that it can be unclear where -- and even *if*
-- he draws a line between Torah and truth in general.

A data point: Peirush haMishnayos Shabbos 23:2 writes "it is prohibited
to study on Shabbos and on YT, except for the books of procecy and
their explanations, even if it was a book in a chokhmah umada". (The
AhS OC 307:11 quotes it as "chokhmah min hachokhmos"; I wonder which
translation he used.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Ellie Fischer's recent op-ed on the conversion bill proposal
<http://mida.org.il/2014/04/07
/elazar-sterns-jewish-conversion-bill-bad-for-the-state-bad-for-religion-ba
d-at-math> includes
the following translation of R YI Herzog's Heikhal Yitzchaq 1:21:c:
    Know that even though the law going back to the tannaitic era [that
    is, the first centuries CE EF] was that ex post facto they are all
    [valid] converts, I have a serious concern nowadays. Earlier in Jewish
    history, a transgressor would be persecuted and held in contempt by
    his own people, and thus when a gentile accepted Judaism, even if he
    was primarily motivated by marriage, he knew that his standing within
    Jewish society would be very low if he did not observe the Torah. That
    is not the case today, when there are so many non-observant people who
    not only have no difficulty as a result, but even stand at the head
    of the nation and its communities. Therefore, we should be concerned
    that there is no real commitment to observe the commandments. Rather,
    out of ulterior motives, he makes a declaration with his mouth,
    but his heart is not in it Therefore, today there is a particular
    responsibility on every rabbi to consider each case until he is
    convinced that it is reasonable that these people will really observe
    our holy religion.

And REF summarizes positions toward QOM accordingly:
: That is, the uncoupling of religious and national identity called into
: question the status of one who converted out of a desire to join the
: Jewish people but not observe the Jewish religion (that is, from the
: perspective of Orthodox rabbis, to become observant Orthodox Jews). Three
: main approaches to this issue emerged: 

: (a) Commitment to Jewish observance is not a sine qua non to conversion,
: either because there is no such requirement or because it is sufficient to
: accept that this is Judaism without really intending to observe it. 

: (b) It is prohibited to perform a conversion when it is clear that there
: is no real commitment to an Orthodox lifestyle; however, a conversion
: performed by a qualified court in which it became clear that there was
: no real commitment to observance is nevertheless accepted ex post facto. 

: (c) A conversion in which there was no sincere commitment to an Orthodox
: lifestyle is simply null and void. 

: The present situation maps itself onto these three approaches in
: approximately the following manner. Most Religious-Zionist rabbis,
: and especially their acknowledged halakhic authorities, accept approach
: (b). In practice, this was also the approach of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Some
: mainly Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazic municipal rabbis and religious court
: judges have adopted approach (c) and have consequently refused to register
: the marriages or otherwise annulled the conversions of those who,
: by their lights, never adopted an Orthodox lifestyle. A small minority
: of rabbis adopt approach (a), none of whom are presently empowered by
: the state to perform conversions. 

: In practice, the Chief Rabbinate and the present conversion courts
: mainly adopt position (b). Converts are required to commit to an
: Orthodox lifestyle, though often with a knowing wink... 

: The state's political echelons, however, has long clamored for approach
: (a)...

: Enter Elazar Sterns conversion bill. By allowing municipal rabbis
: to convene conversion courts, Stern and his fellow travelers hope that
: approach (a) will now become not only a viable option but the vehicle
: for converting people of no religion en masse....

... which is REF's grounds for rejecting the proposal. But getting back to
Avodah topicality...

I think his "b with a knowing wink" is a real issue, as I agree it's the
effective position of the CR, and was apparently followed in more than
one instance in the US by noted posqim (including a BT that included
R Herschel Schachter). I would therefore have listed it, by subdividing
REF's (a):

a.1) Commitment to Jewish observance is not a sine qua non to conversion.

a.2) Commitment to Jewish observance is not a sine qua non to conversion,
but acceptance that this is Judaism is required.

a.3) Commitment to Jewish observance is not a sine qua non to conversion,
but acceptance that this is Judaism and that their lack of commitment is
a personal failing is required.

And I think the CR's effective stance is a.3. Our long debates about qabbalas
ol mitzvos, at least as I saw them, were of two sorts:

1- What does the Rambam hold?

2- Does anyone *not* require QOM, or is it a debate over whether a.3
and b suffice as QOM?

With the side issue that QOM might be defined so loosely as to be
operationally meaningless even if required. To wit:

A ger qatan's QOM must be obtained observationally, as there is no way
to get the child to declare their qabbalah before BD within tokh kedei
dibur of growing that 2nd sei'ar. Which seems to rule out requiring a
formal act of qabbalah.

And a.3 seems to rule out much of an observational aspect to qabbalah.

So what exactly *is* required?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

R' Micha Berger quoted an editorial, which in turn gave a translation of
Rav YI Herzog's Heikhal Yitzchaq 1:21:c. It was presented as a single
paragraph, but in order to introduce my question, I'm going to split it
into two parts. Rav Herzog wrote:

> Know that even though the law going back to the tannaitic era [that
> is, the first centuries CE EF] was that ex post facto they are all
> [valid] converts, I have a serious concern nowadays.

> Earlier in Jewish history, a transgressor would be persecuted and
> held in contempt by his own people, and thus when a gentile
> accepted Judaism, even if he was primarily motivated by marriage,
> he knew that his standing within Jewish society would be very low
> if he did not observe the Torah. That is not the case today, when
> there are so many non-observant people who not only have no
> difficulty as a result, but even stand at the head of the nation
> and its communities. Therefore, we should be concerned that there
> is no real commitment to observe the commandments. Rather,out of
> ulterior motives, he makes a declaration with his mouth, but his
> heart is not in it Therefore, today there is a particular
> responsibility on every rabbi to consider each case until he is
> convinced that it is reasonable that these people will really
> observe our holy religion.

My problem is that I see no logical connection between the first part and
the second. In the first part, he seems to say that if a convert was NOT
sincere about his commitment to keep the mitzvos, the conversion is still
valid b'dieved. In the second part, he explains why we have far more
insincere converts nowadays than we used to.

What conclusion does he expect us to reach from his comparison of then and
now in the second section? As I can see it, the only point he seems to be
making is that a proper l'chatchila conversion is much more difficult
nowadays. Rav Herzog does NOT seem to cast any new aspersions on the ex
post facto validity of the Jewishness of an insincere convert, even
nowadays.

But if my logic in the above paragraph is correct, then what is the
"serious concern nowadays" that he speaks of in the first section? It seems
to me that the concern would only be that we are unfortunately allowing
these non-Jews to become Mechalalei Shabbos Etc., but NOT that there would
be any question, b'dieved, about their Jewishness. Am I missing something?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54599750de0a31750323ast02vuc

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 05:15:29PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Species was surely a formal concept from the earliest days of language.
: How could people ever make sense of the world without it?  And we do
: find interfertility used in halacha as a determinant of species, e.g.
: in the rule that kosher and treife species can't interbreed...

Of animals. Not plants. But obviously taxonomy isn't as old as language;
I don't know what to make of your opening sentence. A "min", a "kind"
isn't a formal species.

BTW, if you think the Torah does expect us to categorize in these terms,
oat matzos are entirely absurd concept. The only way oats could possibly
one of the 5 grains is because wild oats tend to grow iamong barley.
In terms of species.... Well, all 5 minim of grain are supposed to be
subtypes of chitah and se'orah (the two grains among the 7 minim of EY)
-- and oats are quite different than either.

Much like lumping bats and birds, because we care more about having wings
than scientific taxonomy.

: And no, eucalyptus do *not* look like willows, which is why nobody has
: ever mistaken them for willows.

Again I'm left stymied. I already posted links to two sites that showed
eucalyptus branches and demonstrated what I meant when I said they look
like aravos.
http://www.legendarymotivation.com/benefits-of-eucalyptus-tree-products

While you're right in that the tree itself doesn't, no one claimed they
were "mistaken for willows" but that they had enough simlarity for it
to make sense to ask whether they are the same min.

...
:> So, if kelayim only follow appearance, it is fair to ask about 4 minim.
: 
: Kil'ayim is a funny mitzvah.  It seems to be all about appearance rather
: than substance.  In most mitzvos, we have an actual wrong, and then we
: have mar'is ho`ayin, which is giving the appearance of the underlying
: wrong.  With kil'ayim there seems to be no underlying wrong; it's all
: about appearance! ...

Different kind of "appearance" though. You could have a mar'is ayin
of kelayim, it could look like you planted to things next to eachother
when one is in a pot that has no hole, for example. There are also issues
with gourds (?) whose leaves are so big the plant could look closer to
kelayim bekerem than it really is, and is assur mishum MA, not deOraisa.

You really have to establish that kelayim's concept of minim is unique
this way. Otherwise you are presuming your conclusion.

When it comes to nolad -- we go by shinui sheim. Shinui sheim also is
sufficient in choshein mishpat. There are numerous situations where we
use socially accepted categories rather than scientifically defined ones.
Enough that my own presumption is that this is the norm in halakhah,
not the reverse.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:20:47AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/nmlrd79

:> To summarize: It is a distortion of Halacha to say that Christianity
:> or Islam is fine for gentiles...

In it, R' Donny Fuchs gives his position which contradicts takes on
Tosafos (and the idea that Notzrut, or at least the state of church
teachings in Rabbeinu Tam's day, is shituf), and for that matter halakhah
pesuqah WRT entering a masjid, without providing sources.

I was hoping someone who had firm answers on the topic would have provided
some rather than my having to post that I don't feel convinced by the
ones the article offers.

Here are the broad questions I see raised:

1- Does being an observant Noachide necessitate making Noachidism a
religion, with its own rites, or can Noachide compliance be a property
of an existing religion?

The Rambam gives one answer, R' Tam implies the other.

2- Do the 7 mitzvos need to be lishmah, in the sense that one is following
them because they're the 7 mitzvos as Noach's beris was described to
Moshe at Sinai.

This is the one of RDF's conclusions for which he did provide a halachic
source --- the Rambam says that it is not following the beris if the
mitzvos happen to be kept because of the person's own chokhmah. I didn't
see an argument, though, that says we indeed hold like the Rambam.

While this is similar to the first question, it's not exactly the same
thing. (Very similar, but not perfectly correlated.) A Xian or Moslem
could believe that HQBH described the Beris Noach to MRAH, choose to
comply to the 7 mitzvos (given the right answer to the next question),
and keep their religion and its rites. (After all, a Moslem needn't
believe that *everything* revealed to us was corrupted.)

2- Are Xianity and Islam really monotheistic? (Separate questions for
each.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You cannot propel yourself forward
mi...@aishdas.org        by patting yourself on the back.
http://www.aishdas.org                   -Anonymous
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 11/5/2014 3:54 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 10:20:47AM -0400, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> : From http://tinyurl.com/nmlrd79
>
> :> To summarize: It is a distortion of Halacha to say that Christianity
> :> or Islam is fine for gentiles...
>
> In it, R' Donny Fuchs gives his position which contradicts takes on
> Tosafos (and the idea that Notzrut, or at least the state of church
> teachings in Rabbeinu Tam's day, is shituf), and for that matter halakhah
> pesuqah WRT entering a masjid, without providing sources.

That's actually a gross misreading of Tosfot.  Tosfot never suggest that 
Christianity is shituf.  Only that causing a non-Jew to swear by "God" 
is permitted, even though the non-Jew is "meshatef" something else to 
that name.

Lisa

On 11/05/2014 04:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> Much like lumping bats and birds, because we care more about having wings
> than scientific taxonomy.

The current definition of "birds" is no more "scientific" than the old one;
it just uses different characteristics.  Modern taxonomy has the concept of
a "mammal", and only non-mammals can be "birds".  Ancient Hebrew had no such
concept, and there's no reason it should have had. Flying was simply a more
important attribute than fur or lactation.


>
> : And no, eucalyptus do *not*  look like willows, which is why nobody has
> : ever mistaken them for willows.
>
> Again I'm left stymied. I already posted links to two sites that showed
> eucalyptus branches and demonstrated what I meant when I said they look
> like aravos.
> http://www.legendarymotivation.com/benefits-of-eucalyptus-tre
> e-products
>
> While you're right in that the tree itself doesn't

QED.  Thus nobody has mistaken them, contrary to your claim.

> no one claimed they
> were "mistaken for willows" but that they had enough simlarity for it
> to make sense to ask whether they are the same min.

*You* claimed that the first Hebrew-speakers who encountered them called them
"aravot".   I challenge that claim.  I don't believe any Hebrew-speakers have
ever called them that, or for that matter that speakers of any other language
have called them whatever their word for "willow" is.  AFAIK nobody until you
has suggested that they are the same species (under any taxonomic system);
the only suggestion has been that perhaps we don't *care* what species they are,
if they fit the simanim they can be used for the mitzvah.  And I don't think
that suggestion holds water.

Given that ebola has put he idea in public discussion, R' Micha Cohn of the
Bais HaVaad leInyani Mishpat asks:
> Are Doctors Permitted to Risk Their Lives to Save Others?

http://www.thehalachacenter.org/journal-links/5775/bereishis/
lech-lecha/ebola.php
or <http://j.mp/10yUZml>

> The Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the world wide fears of the
> deadly disease raise many halachic and ethical issues, particularly
> for medical care providers. Are doctors obligated or even permitted to
> put themselves at risk of getting the dreaded disease in order to save
> others? In this article we will examine some of the pertinent halachic
> sources relating to this most serious question.

Radava"z, R' Ovadia Yosef, the Tzitz Eliezer, the Rama and R' Chaim
Pilaggi

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

So, there was a post on Areivim about an ad to participate in a "known
segulah" that the author hadn't heard of, which turned into a discussion
of segulos.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 04:29:32PM -0400, Ben Rothke via Areivim wrote:
: A superb lecture on the topic is: Segulas and Superstitions The Rise of
: Mysticism in Jewish Life by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky -
: http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/788206

I found RSP's presentation flawed. His main thesis was apparently to
object to the trend toward taking segulos and theurgy as effective. But,
for a short time, when he notes that the gemara mentions qemei'os and the
like, RSP backs off to complaining about the lack of tamim tihyeh im H'
E-lokekha that is in relying on segulos. But that's far short of denying
that they could work.

But clearly the majority of Babylonian Amoraim believed that theurgy was
real. And lehalakhah there is a difference between wearing a qemei'ah
mumcheh (possibly what evolved into the words "known segulah") in a
reshus harabim on Shabbos and wearing one that is not mumcheh.

To which the AhS adds the typical Litvish warning about "tamim tihyeh",
but he doesn't question the effectiveness. If one wants to be that much
of a rationalist, one has to deal with numerous gemaros. And that's
still one step short of questioning the legitimacy of someone else
accepting that segulos work!

There is also a third approach: that segulos are like the simanei milsa
of Rosh haShahan dinner -- physical kavanah aids that therefore get
midah-keneged-midah response in straight sekhar terms. Wear a red string
in order to take some lesson from the selection of Peretz about jelousy,
and why can't the resulting change get one protection from the effects
of causing jealousy (ayin ra) in others? And then one could object to
how many do segulos, without objecting to segulos themselves.

Here, the "known segulah" involved learning, a taanis dibbur, things for
which a middah-keneged-middah sekhar interpretation would be trivial.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The sefer Torah in Bologna was carbon-dated to the 12th cent, making
it the oldest known complete seifer. So, the topic came up on Areivim.
See http://www.biblicalarch
aeology.org/daily/news/a-sefer-torah-in-the-bologna-library-may-be-the-olde
st-known-torah-scroll
or <http://j.mp/1tMYwtd> for other coverage of the story.

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 05:24:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote:
: Carbon dating dates it to about the year 1200 or contemporaneous with
: Rambam so it is logical that the sefer Torah not follow the piskei halacha
: of Rambam.

R/Dr Jose Faur (of JTSA) contends that there is a unique integrity of
mesorah from the geonim through the Rif to the Rambam, and the rabbis of
his ancestral al Andalus in general. This may be a proof against that
contention. But either way, how often is the Rambam inventing a pesaq
that wasn't already in practice somewhere? Probably no more than anyone
else.

: In many respects the sefer is similar to the Keter Aram Tzovah (of which
: only a small part surviced on the Torah) especially shirat Ha-azinu.

: However, this sefer has different tagim (following an ancient sefer Tagim
: which predates Saadia Goan). There are also many circular sihns put in
: about some letters and even comments(or other girsaot) in the margins
: of the sefer.

A Mauro Perani commented on the article I pointed to above. Skipping to
his points that are of more mesoretic imports:
> 4. as happened for the system of putting vowels and accents on the
> consonantal Hebrew text of the Bible, before to be acknowledged as
> unique that used by the rabbinic schools of Tiberias, did exist also
> another one called Babylon, in the same way it happened for the graphic
> tradition of how to write the scroll of the Pentateuch.

> There was an Eastern graphic-textual oriental tradition of south-west
> or Palestinian, already present in embryonic form in the Mishnah and the
> Talmud (Menachot), which was confirmed in the external treaty Masseket
> soferim (8th century), which since the 12th -13th centuries prevailed,
> as the unique one, supplanting the other;

> But there was also a different oriental graphic and esthetic tradition
> of north-east namely Babylonian, fixed in the 8th century in the Sefer
> Tagin, read and cited by Saadia Gaon (9th -10th centuries) in his
> commentary on Sefer Yetzirah, which is exactly the system fully adopted
> by the Sefer Torah in Bologna.

> For various reasons, from sec. 12th-13th the Babylonian system
> disappeared, supplanted by the Tiberian one, which became the only one
> which the copyists should follow.

> In both systems the crowns or tagin are placed upon different Hebrew
> letters, and the letters in particular curled form are different, as well
> as other characteristics permitted in the Babylonian system, but that will
> become absolutely forbidden in the Palestinian system, such as the use of
> graphic fillers for justification of the left at the end of every line,
> the use of a final nun in the margins, the use of erase texts and add
> in the margins, etcetera, all present in the Sefer Torah found in Bologna.

So it seems that ironically, the mesorah which led the Balogna seifer
to differ from the pesaqim of the Rambam is that the Rambam relied more
on Ben Asher in Teveriah, and the Bologna sofer was more like the Bavel
of the geonim...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:43 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R/Dr Jose Faur (of JTSA) contends that there is a unique integrity of
> mesorah from the geonim through the Rif to the Rambam, and the rabbis of
> his ancestral al Andalus in general. This may be a proof against that
> contention. But either way, how often is the Rambam inventing a pesaq
> that wasn't already in practice somewhere? Probably no more than anyone
> else.

No one claimed that the Rambam "invented a pesaq". As Micha himself
later brings the claim is that there was more than one mesorah especially
about the tagim . In fact we know that Rambam and Rosh disagree agree
about Pesuchot and Stumot.

In fact with regard to the shira of haazanu The Bologna sefer Torah is
the same as Rambam and Keter Aram Tzovah. For shirat hayam we dont have
the keter but the Bologna sefer torah and Rambam agree. They also both
have 4 empty lines between the 5 chumashin.

Perani spoke for only 45 minutes and was followed by a Professor at
Tel Aviv University. So they could not really go into great detail
about the differences but the stress was mainly on the tagim. He also
mentioned that the sefer torah was written on gvil and not klaf.

Several comments: As noted the most of the Keter on the Torah was lost
during riots in Syria. Since in terms of text this sefer Torah seems
to follow the Keter it fills a void about most of the Torah.

He mentioned that the Sefer Torah was given to a priest which is how it
survived since most sifrei torah from that era were buried after they
wore out during the centuries. It seemed stange to me that the Jewish
community would give a sefer to a cleryman.

I noticed that the holders for the sefer Torah seemed to be the same as
modern Ashkenazi sifrei Torah. Also when I davened in the Portugese shul
in Amsterdam they also had the same kind of holders for the klaf. They
claim that these sifrei Torah are original from Portugal.

Does anyone know the origin of the modern Sefardi sifrei Torah which have
an entirely different casing?


[Email #2. It's worth seeing the link to see how Sefaradi safrus evolved.
-micha]

See http://www.rhodesjewishmuseum.org/history/the-800-year-old-torah and
the differences they list between this sefer and modern sifrei torah.

-- 
Eli Turkel


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



_______________________________________________
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.)