Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 161

Tue, 02 Dec 2014

• 1. Re: Limited Mabul? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: Two consecutive shva nachs (David and Esther Bannett)
• 3. Re: Limited Mabul? (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: Limited Mabul? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 5. Re: Limited Mabul? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 6. Re: Limited Mabul? (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Limited Mabul? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Limited Mabul? (H Lampel)
• 9. Re: Limited Mabul? (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 10. Re: Tal Umatar (Avi Goldstein)
• 11. Re: Tal Umatar (Zev Sero)
• 12. An IDF Soldier Asks Rabbi Yosef Rimon An Amazing Question (Akiva Blum)
• 13. Re: An IDF Soldier Asks Rabbi Yosef Rimon An Amazing Question (Micha Berger)

On 12/1/2014 11:24 AM, RYGB via Avodah wrote:
> On 2014-12-01 11:31, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
>> I don't see the Rashash's point.  Two floods where the ocean rose up,
>> and one Mabul between them, where that's not how the flood happened at
>> all.

> The Rashash is saying that since Parasha 5 only speaks of two floods 
> in history, the second flood of dor haflaga must be the mabul, and dor 
> haflaga is lav davka.

I don't see how it can be lav davka. I mean, we use Dor HaMabul all
the time. If it specifically mentions Dor HaPalga, how can that be
lav davka? And like I said, the Mabul wasn't the ocean rising. It was
a combination of underground water sources and water from above.

Lisa

On 12/01/2014 08:16 PM, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
> In bagadt...pronounces the dalet like a Sephardi would, sounding the
> dalet like an Ashkenazic zayin.

Rather than being a zayyin, the pronunciation of a dalet rafa is like
the "th" in this and that. Like all the bg"d kf"t letters, the chazak
is made by closing the appropriate parts of the mouth and opening them
suddenly. The rafa is (or was) made by closing the same parts loosely
in the same or nearby place and blowing air, voiced (bg"d) or (kf"t)
unvoiced, through the slight gap.

As to eshtei, I'm not so sure I remember but, IIRC, Ibn Ezra mentions
that he heard it in North Africa and someone mentions it was used by
"R' Pinchas Rosh Yeshiva".

David

On 12/1/2014 1:50 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
>
> This new data point about the expansions of the sea does not 
> gainsaythe direct global flooding by the rains and the waters of the 
> t?hom. As mentioned in previous iterations, 
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n162.shtml%2302> Tosefos on 
> Zevachim 113aand Rabbeynu Bachaye (Breishis 7:27, 8:11)cite the 
> opinion, based onYechezkiel 22:24, that EY was not subjected to the 
> Mabul?s rains. But they go on to explain that nevertheless, we know 
> from the pesukim in parshas Noach that the waters did go on to flood 
> it. This new data point is evidently qualifying theextent to which 
> even the flood waters affected Eretz Yisroel. It's not limiting the 
> final global range of the Mabul.
>

Agreed.  And... I have to question why we would even be looking for a 
localized flood.  I don't think there's anything in any source or 
mefarshim that demands it.  Is it purely that "This is what the umot 
ha-olam say, so we have to find a way to work with it"?


Lisa

On 12/01/2014 02:13 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I don't see how it can be lav davka.  I mean, we use Dor HaMabul all 
> the time.  If it specifically mentions Dor HaPalga, how can that be 
> lav davka?  And like I said, the Mabul wasn't the ocean rising.  It 
> was a combination of underground water sources and water from above.

Why can't the rise of the ocean be ascribed to its "ma'ayanot tehom?"

Evidently this Ma'amar Chazal has some traction in science:

http://www.livescience.com/10607-colossal-flood-created-mediterr
anean-sea.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Technol
ogy/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=178
84533&;singlePage=true


On 12/01/2014 02:50 PM, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
> This new data point about the expansions of the sea does not 
> gainsaythe direct global flooding by the rains and the waters of the 
> t'hom.....                                               Tosefos on 
> Zevachim 113a and Rabbeynu Bachaye (Breishis 7:27, 8:11)cite the 
> opinion, based onYechezkiel 22:24, that EY was not subjected to the 
> Mabul's rains. But they go on to explain that nevertheless, we know 
> from the pesukim in parshas Noach that the waters did go on to flood 
> it. This new data point is evidently qualifying theextent to which 
> even the flood waters affected Eretz Yisroel. It's not limiting the 
> final global range of the Mabul.

It seems to me that the Gemara in Shekalim et al dovetail nicely with 
the Mabul not inundating EY. They make the Gemara in Zevachim more 
understandable, as conventional (at least my conventional) understanding 
is that the Mabul came from the North and East, so that the impasse at 
EY was very unnatural. However, if the Mabul came from the West, then 
the impasse at the edge of what became the Mediterranean basin is very 
natural.

KT,
YGB

I don't think you can regard the Rashash's comment as a shoehorn. He was 
not an apologist - in fact, lived during a period in which apologetics 
were not necessary - and he is held in high esteem in the Torah world. 
His opinion carries weight in and of itself.

KT,
YGB

On 12/1/2014 4:26 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
> Why can't the rise of the ocean be ascribed to its "ma'ayanot tehom?"

I don't think the question is "why can't it". I think the question
should be "why should it?" There's nothing in our sources that points
to it being localized. However, since we do have sources which talk
about localized floods (such as the one at the time of Dor HaPalga),
it seems reasonable to conclude that the science you're talking about
refers to that/those.

It troubles me that finding ways to shoehorn our traditions into current
scientific paradigms is considered an imperative by some. That mindset
inevitably ends in people going OTD if they can't make things match
perfectly.

Lisa

On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 06:11:50PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: I don't think the question is "why can't it". I think the question
: should be "why should it?" There's nothing in our sources that points
: to it being localized....

That's the whole thing... The Rashash is reading the medrash as saying
there were only two major floods. This is why he has to assume the one
associated with dor hapelaga is THE mabul. In which case, if that flood
is described as local, then it's the mabul that's being described *in
our sources* as local.

Before anyone had an external reason to say such things. Including the
Rashash, as RYGB noted.

To me that's the key issue, and the reason why I repeated RYGB's post
here.

However, IIUC, RZL is offering a different reading of the Rashash:
During the mabul, the whole world flooded. In general, this was due to
rain and the overflowing of the tehom. However, it could still be true
that an area up to the Barbary Coast was also flooded by water from a
third location -- the overflowing of the Mediterranean. The Yam haGadol's
overflow was localized; that doesn't mean the mabul as a whole was!

But I am not sure how we can label the Yam haGadol as a third source.
After all, where did its extra water come from, if not rain and tehom? A
special violation of conservation of matter for the purpose, like a
harsh version of the Shunamite's oil?

I think it's simpler to say the Rashash considers the Yam haGadol
connected to the tehom, that that is all one source. But at this point, it
would be far from a proof. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proofs, not just "simpler to say".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             How wonderful it is that
mi...@aishdas.org        nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org   before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Anne Frank Hy"d

On 12/1/2014 7:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But I am not sure how we can label the Yam haGadol as a third source.
> After all, where did its extra water come from, if not rain and tehom? A
> special violation of conservation of matter for the purpose, like a
> harsh version of the Shunamite's oil?
The Midrash we (and the Rashash) are talking about itself attributes the 
sea's behavior to a miraculous intrinsic change in the nature of its 
water. (This sheds light on how the Midrash views the Yam Suf's split, 
another example the Midrash brings, despite the pesukim's focus on the 
role of the wind).

Zvi Lampel

On 12/01/2014 05:26 PM, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via Avodah wrote:
> It seems to me that the Gemara in Shekalim et al dovetail nicely with 
> the Mabul not inundating EY. They make the Gemara in Zevachim more 
> understandable, as conventional (at least my conventional) 
> understanding is that the Mabul came from the North and East, so that 
> the impasse at EY was very unnatural. However, if the Mabul came from 
> the West, then the impasse at the edge of what became the 
> Mediterranean basin is very natural.

This point is made at
<http://books.google.com/books?id=byMOAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PA229#v=onepage>
in a book by Luncz, 1887.

See <http://books.google.com/books?id=MvUyAQAAMAAJ&;pg=PT15#v=onepage>
from the 1888 /Sheva Chochmos Shebatalmud Ubamedrash/ for an explanation 
of the Gemara in Shekalim and the Midrash that is remarkably similar to 
the Black Sea theory of the flood that only became /au courant/ in 1997 
or so. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis>.

KT,
YGB

I am finding the exchange about Tal Umatar somewhat difficult to
understand, because it seems that both Kenneth and Micha gloss over the
uncomfortable fact that Shmuel miscalculated the length of the year. That
error is not small. It results in our beginning Tal Umatar approximately 73
days after Tekufat Tishrei, which usually falls on Sept. 22 or 23 (not the
24th, as Micha wrote).
Now it is true  that there is enough leeway in the halachos of Tal Umatar
that one can argue that the 60-day stipulation is a loose number. The use
of Shmuel's calendar creates a much more serious issue in its use to
determine the date of Birkat Hachamah.
-- 
Avi Goldstein
Five Towns Nissan
Cell: 516-526-1925
Fax: 516-371-0498
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141201/bde889ac/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/01/2014 10:55 PM, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
> I am finding the exchange about Tal Umatar somewhat difficult to
> understand, because it seems that both Kenneth and Micha gloss over
> the uncomfortable fact that Shmuel miscalculated the length of the
> year.

He did not miscalculate it, any more than R Ada did.  Both lengths,
365 1/4 days and 235/19 months, are convenient approximations, much
easier to work with than the correct value.  Shmuel's approximation
is used for purposes that the ordinary person has to calculate for
himself. It conveniently tracked the goyishe year, so if one had access
to a goyishe calendar no calculation was needed; Tal Umatar starts on
21-Nov (or 22-Nov if a leap day is coming), and Birkat Hachama is said
whenever, in the year after a leap year, 26-Mar falls on a Wednesday.
Pope Gregory complicated that a little by requiring these instructions
to be revised every century or so, but that's not a big problem.
Meanwhile, R Ada's approximation (which is closer to Shmuel's than to
the true value) is intended for more sophisticated people, rabbonim
and those who are in charge of creating and publishing calendars, or
of announcing in shul when Rosh Chodesh will be.   These are also not
expected to be the sort of arithmetic geniuses who can handle a
fraction like 1211/5000, but "add 7 months every 19 years" is easy
enough an instruction.


> The use of Shmuel's calendar creates a much more serious issue in its
> use to determine the date of Birkat Hachamah.

Why?  When *should* birkat hachama be said?

[Link corrected. -mi]
http://youtu.be/GImT9UoAAHs

The soldier is in an arab house in Gaza, the residents have fled.

May he charge his cellphone from the owners electricity, or is that stealing?

On 2014-12-02 6:43 am, Akiva Blum via Avodah wrote:
> http://youtu.be/GImT9UoAAHs
>
> The soldier is in an arab house in Gaza, the residents have fled. May 
> he
> charge his cellphone from the owners electricity, or is that 
> stealing?

R Yosef Rimon's point was that the question was asked, so the 
conversation
doesn't get to an answer. Li nir'eh it's obviously mutar.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                Here is the test to find whether your 
mission
mi...@aishdas.org           on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org      if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Richard Bach


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



_______________________________________________
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.)