Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 165

Mon, 08 Dec 2014

• 1. Re: Tal Umattar (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: heter mechira - lo techanem (Zev Sero)
• 3. heter mechirah lo techanem (Eli Turkel)
• 4. yeshosha ben gamla (Eli Turkel)
• 5. vav-yud-shin-quf (Sholom Simon)
• 6. ziyun-vav-dalet (Sholom Simon)
• 7. Re: vav-yud-shin-quf (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: ziyun-vav-dalet (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Tal Umattar (Avi Goldstein)
• 10. Re: ziyun-vav-dalet (Joshua Meisner)
• 11. Re: ziyun-vav-dalet (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Tal Umattar (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: ziyun-vav-dalet (Lisa Liel)

On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 10:23:31AM -0500, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
: 1. Micha notes that Shmuel was able to pre-compute a calendar of 60 years
: and that Shmuel was known for his astronomical prowess.
: Unfortunately (and I know this sounds uncomfortable), one cannot prove a
: source's abilities from the source itself...

It goes beyond sounding uncomfortable. I can't picture an acharon making
an unsupported board os his expertese, never mind an amorah.

But in any case, the claim made it into a heavily editted and repeatedly
redacted book. We thereby know of generations of amoraim and savoraim
who believed his claim. Starting with Shemu'el's rebbe, Rabbi Yochanan
(Chullin 95b) who receives the precalculated calendar and acidically
commented, "chushbena de'alma yada -- he knows mere calculations". His
peers called him Yachina'ah (from Yareiach, BM 85b) and Shoqed
(astronomer, Y-mi Kesuvos 28b).

You also neglect my second objection -- the tequfah may be named
after Shemu'el, but its use for Birkhas haChamah is said by Abayei,
who post-dates R Ada by a century.

: 2. Birkas haChamah is clearly meant to indicate an astronomical event...

Then why is the timing phrased as being during Mazal Shabetai, rather than
sunset ending Yom Shelishi? It's astrology, not astronomy.

As Zev notes, the mechanics of the astrology appear simple. The week from
Wed to Wed (at this relates to the latest one can make havdalah) is
divided into hours, and the hours are assigned to the kokhavei lekhes
in order of their distance from earth (when orbits are in proximity):
    1- Shabetai (Saturn)
    2- Tzedeq (Jupiter)
    3- Maadim (Mars)
    4- Chamah
    5- Nogah (Venus)
    6- Kokhav (Mercury)
    7- Levanah

Which means that the days each begin during a different Mazal, since 24
isn't divisible by 7 and 7 is prime -- so there can't be common divisors.
    Sun - Chamah (unsurprizing)
    Mon - Levanah (equally unsurprising)
    Tue - Maadim
    Wed - Kakhav
    Thu - Tzedeq
    Fri - Nogah
    Sbs - Shabetai (also unsurprising, if you thik about it)

The mazal Shabetai in our gemara as when the equinox occurs refers to
the last hour of Tues "beShabetai, be'orta detelas naghi arba".

What is less obvious is how any of this relates to the elements of
the solar system in question. Nothing physical relates saturn to
the time window. The assumption that we're talking about astronomical
events doesn't fit the words of the gemara. So maybe nothing physical
relates the astrological tequfah to the astronomical equinox.

What I would propose is that since "shekocho ugevuraso malei olam"
is said when we experience something that reminds us of Yad Hashem,
it is the reminder rather than whether the event is "real" that
matters. If people think of the year as roughly 365-1/4 days, and
generally don't think about the drift, it's enough of a reminder
to match that.

Now what I would further propose that is the point at which Zev and
I would part ways (I think) is that the metaphysics too depends more
on human perception of things than on physics. That what ties the
physical world to higher fores is that the human soul inhabits them
all. But I do not expect a Lub Chasid like Zev to buy into a
metaphysics from Nefesh haChaim sha'ar 1, never mind one based on
a tyro's (me) deduction from it.

...
: 3. The issue of the age of the universe has no bearing on the present
: discussion. Yes, I do say "hayom haras olam." Even if we accept the six-day
: Creation timeline as literal, the actual date of haras olam is disputed
: among the Rishonim. Not everyone agrees that it is  Aleph Tishrei. Yet no
: one has suggested that we veer from the traditional wording of the nusach.

My point exactly. We do not pray based on astronomy.

: 4. I don't know what "lack of faith in the halachic process" you think you
: detected. I did make the bracha!

I was talking about your friends who needed to provide for themselves
a less questionable reason for saying the berakhah by going to the
Atlantic. The reason for my distress is that someone would question
the appropriateness of the berakhah, rather than just acknowledging
they have a question. (Treating their difficulty as a possible tiyuvta,
rather than a qushya.)

: When we last said Bikas HaChamah, I researched the issue carefully. I
: cannot remember where I saw this (maybe Shut of Chasam Sofer?), but there
: were European communities who did not say the bracha b'shem umalchus,
: evidently because they knew that Shmuel's calculation was wrong. And so
: perhaps the lack of faith issue should be taken up with them.

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


:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/05/2014 01:06 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
>
> I think it's a hint to the mesader qidushin to remember to make sure
> the parties know what they're signing and how much of it is a real
> debt the other side can expect to collect / pay over.
>
> After all, there are often extra amounts added to a kesuvah which
> are actually mere formality and both sides are assumed to know are
> guzma. (It's routine among Sepharadim.)

IIRC it's an explicit mishneh that there are places where it's
universally understood not just that the amounts in a kesuba are
inflated, but also exactly how much they're inflated.  Everyone
is expected to be able to convert in their heads from the inflated
amount in the document to the real amount intended.

I'm reminded of the official at some institution who protested to
the editor of the Yiddish paper that he had reported only 80 people
attended the institution's event, when in fact it had been 100.
The editor replied, "You actually got 100 people?!  If I'd known
that, I'd have reported 1000!"

<<I think it's a hint to the mesader qidushin to remember to make sure
the parties know what they're signing and how much of it is a real
debt the other side can expect to collect / pay over.>>

By now any connection to Heter mechirah is coincidental.

Does anyone really expect to collect their kesuba today?
From memory the sums in the standard kesuba are not very large
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141206/9f84e815/attachment-0001.htm>

A recent day yomi states that Marta bat Baytus paid money to the king
Yannai to appoint Yehoshua ben Gamla as high priest, I dont understand the
gemara as it wekk known (both from other gemarot and historical sources)
that the Chashmanoim kings including Yannai were the high priests (which
was a political position in addition to a religious position).
From the quote below he was high priest right before the destruction
of the Temple
which means the poisition was bought from the Romans (Agrippas II) and not
Yannai which would answer my question.

The commentaries already not that Yeshoshua ben Gamla was known for jis
takkanot which seems to contradict the fact that the position was obtained
through bribery (see Bach CM 8 for implications).Tosaphot claims there were
2 high priests with the same name.

from the Jewish Encylopedia

A high priest who officiated about 64 C.E. He married therich widow Martha
of the high-priestly family Boethos (Yeb. vi. 4), and she by bribing
Agrippa II. (not Jannai, as Talmudic sources say) secured for him the
office of high priest (Yeb. 61a; Yoma 18a; comp. "Ant." xx. 9, ? 4).
Although Joshua himself was not a scholar, he was solicitous for the
instruction of the young, and provided schools in every town for children
over five years of age, earning thereby the praises of posterity (B. B.
21a). The two lots used on the Day of Atonement, hitherto of boxwood, he
made of gold (Yoma iii. 9).

Joshua did not remain long in office, being forced, after a year, to give
way to Matthias ben Theophil ("Ant." xx. 9, ? 7). Together with the former
high priest Anan and other men of rank, he opposed, but without success,
the election of Phinehas b. Samuel (68) as high priest ("B. J." iv. 3, ?
9). He attempted peaceably to prevent the fanatic and pugnacious Idumeans
from entering Jerusalem, then torn by internal dissensions. After they had
come into possession of the city, these fanatics took bloody vengeance on
him, by executing him, as well as Anan, as traitors to their country (68)
("B. J." iv. 5, ? 2).



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141206/1bb81e18/attachment.htm>

During the leining of vayeitze a few weeks back, I noticed something 
that kinda stuck out at me.

Vav-yud-shin-quf was used twice in the space of six words, but one 
time it meant to "water the sheep" and the other time it was Yaakov 
kissing Rachel. (24:10-11).

I've got nothing to say about it, other than it struck me that two 
essential/crucial words with such different meaning and the same 
spellings would be so close to each other.

Thoughts, anyone?

-- Sholom

I also found striking the first three words of 25:29 -- "vayazed Yaakov nazid"

Onkelos renders it as "u'vshil Yaakov tavshila" -- and that's pretty 
much how everybody translates it.

It strikes me that 99% of the time that ziyun-vav-dalet means to 
scheme, or something intentional, from which word b'maizid comes 
from.  Torah could have used b-sh-l here, but chose v'yazed.  Is 
there any implication, then, that Yaakov had in mind the birthright 
sale as he was cooking the dish?

-- Sholom

On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 04:13:19PM -0500, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
: Vav-yud-shin-quf was used twice in the space of six words, but one
: time it meant to "water the sheep" and the other time it was Yaakov
: kissing Rachel. (24:10-11).

Add to that the fact that a racheil is a young lamb...

I think it foreshadows the idea that Yaaqov later tends those tzon for
7 years lost in love for that one Racheil -- "vayihyu be'einav keyamim
achadim". He watered the sheep, perhaps, as a show of affection for
Rachel.

Why does that pasuq mention "Lavan achi imo" three times?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On 12/07/2014 04:38 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
> I also found striking the first three words of 25:29 -- "vayazed Yaakov nazid"
>
> Onkelos renders it as "u'vshil Yaakov tavshila" -- and that's pretty much how everybody translates it.
>
> It strikes me that 99% of the time that ziyun-vav-dalet means to
> scheme, or something intentional, from which word b'maizid comes from.
>  Torah could have used b-sh-l here, but chose v'yazed.  Is there any
> implication, then, that Yaakov had in mind the birthright sale as he
> was cooking the dish?

They're two different verbs.

"To act deliberately" is "lehaZID", with a yud, as in "asher yaZID
  ledaber".   There's no vav in the root.  Presumably "and he acted
deliberately" would be "vayaZID", though I can't find it in Tanach.

"He stewed" is "vaYAzed".  Not sure what the root is, but it's not
the same word.

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> "It goes beyond sounding uncomfortable. I can't picture an acharon making
> an unsupported board os his expertese, never mind an amorah."
>

I don't understand what you mean to say, as there appear to be typos in
what you wrote. Please clarify. However, again let me state that it is
possible that Shmuel thought he knew astronomy but in fact did not.

>
>
> You wrote: "You also neglect my second objection -- the tequfah may be
> named after Shemu'el, but its use for Birkhas haChamah is said by Abayei,
> who post-dates R Ada by a century."


I don't understand what you are trying to prove. What difference does it
make when Abaye lived?

>

You argue that Birkas HaChamah is astrological, not astronomical, in
> nature. I don't agree. The fact that the days and hours are divided into
> astrological segments does not detract from the fact that Chazal truly
> believed that we can pinpoint the time and day of the week when teliyas
> hame'oros is replicated.


 Avi Goldstein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141207/d049a168/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> On 12/07/2014 04:38 PM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
>
>> I also found striking the first three words of 25:29 -- "vayazed Yaakov
>> nazid"
>>
>> Onkelos renders it as "u'vshil Yaakov tavshila" -- and that's pretty much
>> how everybody translates it.
>>
>> It strikes me that 99% of the time that ziyun-vav-dalet means to scheme,
>> or something intentional, from which word b'maizid comes from.  Torah could
>> have used b-sh-l here, but chose v'yazed.  Is there any implication, then,
>> that Yaakov had in mind the birthright sale as he was cooking the dish?
>>
>
> They're two different verbs.
>
> "To act deliberately" is "lehaZID", with a yud, as in "asher yaZID
>  ledaber".   There's no vav in the root.  Presumably "and he acted
> deliberately" would be "vayaZID", though I can't find it in Tanach.
>
> "He stewed" is "vaYAzed".  Not sure what the root is, but it's not
> the same word.


R'SRHirsch ties the two roots together by saying that a n'zid is cooked for
a long time until thoroughly prepared, while a zadon is an act that has
been thoroughly planned out and premeditated.  Incidentally, he also notes
that Vayazed is causative, i.e., instructing someone else to cook.

Joshua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141208/7431d27b/attachment.htm>

On 12/7/2014 9:34 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> "To act deliberately" is "lehaZID", with a yud, as in "asher yaZID
>  ledaber".   There's no vav in the root.  Presumably "and he acted
> deliberately" would be "vayaZID", though I can't find it in Tanach.

> "He stewed" is "vaYAzed".  Not sure what the root is, but it's not
> the same word.

The root of vayazed (he stewed) is n-z-d.  The nun is weak and drops, 
like vayipol, which is from n-f-l.  It's specific to preparing nezid.

Lisa

On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 11:39:58PM -0500, Avi Goldstein via Avodah wrote:
: On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > "It goes beyond sounding uncomfortable. I can't picture an acharon making
: > an unsupported board os his expertese, never mind an amorah."
: 
: I don't understand what you mean to say, as there appear to be typos in
: what you wrote. Please clarify. However, again let me state that it is
: possible that Shmuel thought he knew astronomy but in fact did not.

Take II, my critique of your saying that we only have Shemuel's word
about his own astreonomical knowledge included other examples (eg R
Yochanan who accepts that Shemuel knew it, but belittle the value)
and my personal emptional response. Which should have read:

It goes beyond sounding uncomfortable. I can't picture an acharon making
an unsupported boast of his expertese, never mind an amorah.

:> You wrote: "You also neglect my second objection -- the tequfah may be
:> named after Shemu'el, but its use for Birkhas haChamah is said by Abayei,
:> who post-dates R Ada by a century."

: I don't understand what you are trying to prove. What difference does it
: make when Abaye lived?

Abayei lived a century after R' Ada lent his own name to a more precise
tequfah. And Abayei lived in a time when the people of Bavel could compute
the date of YT for themselves, because he is the one to make the taqanah
to continue keeping minhag avoseihem. IOW, R' Adda's tequfah was broadly
accepted as more precise in Abayei's day, never mind in Shemu'el's day
(among the masses, never mind someone nicknamed "Astronomer" by his
peers).

So, at a time when everone had the current cycle of iburim and thus
knew that the tropical year to more precision than 365-1/4, when
Abayei himself tells as as much, the same person says that 365-1/4
is good enough for Birkhas haChamah. It wasn't that anyone thought
it was exact.

Also, in terms of Mazal Shabetai, giving us a one hour window, the
difference between Tequfas Shemuel and Tequfas R' Adda would slip the
equinox outside that window in 14 years or so, before the very next
Birkhas haChamah! (And it's worse if you use the currently known tropical
year of 365.2421897 days, it'll take only 6 years.)

So Abayei apparently knew all about the slippage and didn't care. If that
bothers you, then it would seem some of your assumptions about what the
taqanah of Birkhas haChamah is about need rethinking.

But positing backward, that Abayei or Shemuel shared your taam hamitzvah
but didn't know the science well enough to have your problem doesn't fit
historically.

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

On 12/8/2014 12:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> NZD vs NVZ would be close enough for RSRH to find a common meta-root
> based on his linguistic rules. I also think they're close enough for
> Sholom and Zev, two chassidically inclined individuals, to find the
> similarity significant enough to darshen.

Certainly true.

> (I am not sure NVZ vs NYZ would be different shorashim. As in Chava is
> from /ch-y-h/, hyh and hvh, or the flexibility behyind menuchah and
> lehaniyach...

I'm not sure those examples are pertinent.  Verbs with yud or vav in the 
middle are commonly switched without changing meanings.  Lasum, lasim, 
for example.  And menucha and l'haniach are both from the root nach.  I 
can see linking nzd and zyd on levels of midrash or remez, but I don't 
see it with pshat.

Lisa


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



_______________________________________________
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.)