Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 36

Thu, 05 Mar 2015

• 1. Re: different ways of pronouncing Hebrew (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: different ways of pronouncing Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: different ways of pronouncing Hebrew (Zev Sero)
• 6. Pshat and Drash ()
• 7. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah ()
• 8. To Drink or Not to Drink (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (H Lampel)

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> My position is:
> Hebrew was the private family language of Avraham and his family.
> I can't tell when it originated but it seems that Lavan did not
> know (or at least use) it.

Lavan may or may not have used the same language as his great-grandfather
Terach, which in turn may  or may not have been Lashon Hakodesh. Offhand,
I'm not aware of any evidence in either direction.

One thing I do know is that Adam HaRishon did know and use Lashon Hakodesh.
This argues against the idea that Avraham might have invented it from
scratch. I admit that there's still room to say that it had been forgotten
and Avraham re-discovered it, but to me, it seems much more reasonable to
say that Avraham received it from Shem and Ever.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f59455a8026145502aest01vuc

On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:59:45AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Lavan may or may not have used the same language as his
: great-grandfather Terach, which in turn may or may not have been Lashon
: Hakodesh. Offhand, I'm not aware of any evidence in either direction.

I must have lost the thread of the conversation.

Lavan calls the monument Yegar Sahadusa, Yaaqov calls it Gal'eid. One
uses Aramaic, the other Hebrew, both mean the same thing.

Yaaqov then makes a beris in the name of Hashem, and Lavan responds by
invoking the G-d or gods of Avraham, of Nachor and of their avos.

Lavan's choice of formal speech is another language, and it seems likel
it was intended to harken back to Nachor and Terach.

Im going to reiterate my previous point; since I don't know how to state
it clearly, I'll try differently.

If Avraham's Lashon haQodesh is noticably different than David haMelekh's,
we can take it for granted that Adam's was different from Avraham's
as well.

So, we have some ancestor of Yaakov's Hebrew being spoken by Noach,
which by convention we are calling an earlier version of Leshon haQodesh.
However, since LhQ and Aramaic hadn't split yet, Noach's language was
equally an earlier version of Lavan's Aramaic. It could well be his
people thought of it as early Aramaic.

Meanwhile, Terach was around before and after Migdal Bavel.

A lot rests on what "safah achas udevarim achadim" means in Bereishis
11:1, as well as "balal Hashem sefas kol ha'aretz" (v 9).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> One of RZLampel's pet questions is understanding the nature of derashah,
> so I'm CC-ing him. Here in particular, it's a bit interesting: OT1H,
> we have a Chazal telling us that either a specific derashah was not made
> OTOH, we have a fundamental machloqes tannaim about how to group derashos
> into a system -- whether Hillel's 7, R' Yishmael's 13, R' Aqiva's...

> So, it's hard to say the specific derashah is miSinai (although I did
> sguggest two ways) and it's hard to say the system for deriving derashos
> is miSinai. So what do we say? And yet, a derashah produces a din
> deOraisa -- it's no asmachata bealma.

I think that the question is more fundamental then that and I have seen it
phrased it in a number of contemporary seforim as follows:
1. The derasha creates the Halacha
or
2.The halacha creates the derasha

The fundamental question is what is the purpose of derashos? Do they
actually create halachos or are they just a way of remembering the halacha.
1 is associated with the Malbim and 2 with the Doros Harishonim according
to these seforim.

This would seem to be dependent on the machlokes between the Geonim and the
Rambam as to what did we get at Har Sinai and what is the nature of
Machlokes?
1. Geonim - every single detail was given at Har Sinai and any machlokes is
because the din was forgotten. Based on this it makes sense to say that
derashos don't create halachos, the halachos were all given to Moshe
Rabbenu, the derashos are just a way of remembering the halacha.
2. Rambam - Not every detail was given to Moshe Rabenu and Machlokes is NOT
because of people forgetting things. According to the Rambam it is clear
that derashos create halachos.

"But, neither help understand the story of Moshe's visit to Rabbi Aqiva's
shiur. Because the gemara implies that R' Aqiva made valid derashos that
were not given to Moshe, even in the form of being given both 49 derakhim
letamei -- 49 letaheir. At least, not given to Moshe in retail. The idea
that Moshe was given the rules by which R' Aqiva worked is implied by
HQBH's nechamah to him."

The Brisker Rav (Menachos 29b) has a fascinating explanation of this Gemara
which may help answer your question.

He explains that according to R' Yosi (Sanhedrin 21a) the Torah was given
to Moshe Rabenu in ksav ivri. Ksav Ivri is very different then ksav ashuri
and has no tagin. Therefore, Moshe Rabenu couldn't darshen the derashos
that R' Akiva was making because the raw material for those derashos (the
tagin) didn't exist in his time. It was only after Ezra changed the ksav to
ashuris that these derashos could be made.

On 03/03/2015 01:35 AM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote:
> The Emes LYaakov agrees that the Luchos both contained the same
> wording, through the Kri Ksiv Sod Pshat instrumentation (sic ).  I
> judge it short of the RZS?s clean slate.

I am not at all arguing a clean slate.  There was certainly a big difference
between the luchos of Shavuos and those of Yom Kippur.  And some of this
is indicated in Hashem's insistence that Moshe had to carve the second
luchos, even though He provided the material.  All I'm saying is that they
were carved out of the same stuff, and inscribed by the same Hand, with
the same text.   This is *certainly* what the chumash says, and the only
possible pshat; our dispute, which started with a plain assertion (including
misquoted pesukim) that this was not true, has moved into whether there are
perhaps midroshim that say otherwise, and whether we can take them at face
value.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On 03/03/2015 04:26 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>>That doesn't mean Avraham invented it!   I don't know why we would suppose
>> such a thing.

  
> Of course Yaacov and his sons spoke Hebrew (which is how the interpreter,
> Menashe, knew it).  But who says the Kenaanim spoke it? >>
>
> I am confused don't these contradict each other?

How so?  Where's the contradiction?


> My position is:
> Hebrew was the private family language of Avraham and his family.

Either that, or it was the language of Ur Kasdim, or of the Bnei Shem
whom the Kenaanim evicted, or Avraham picked it up somewhere else.
There's no reason to suppose that he invented it himself.  But more
importantly there's no reason to suppose it was the language of Kenaan,
which is the claim we are discussing.


> I can't tell when it originated but it seems that Lavan did not know
> (or at least use) it.

He certainly didn't use it, so it was not the language of Charan.  He *may*
have learned it from his grandparents; we're not told.


> As such Avraham and family communicated with the outside world in
> Aramaic/Canaanite. Aramaic at least being not that different from
> Hebrew.

Yes, this is my assumption, and what I have been arguing here.


> The language spoken in Canaan was a semitic language
>  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaanite_languages )
>  independent of any genealogy.

Specifically, according to the sources that article relies on, the
Canaanite language spoken in Canaan was Hebrew.  That is the claim I
am disputing so vigorously, because it seems to me to contradict our
tradition, and the reason the archaeologists insist on it is because
they deny that there was a conquest, and believe that we are the Kenaanim.

Now presumably a Semitic language *was* spoken in EY *before* the
Kenaanim conquered it.  And it may have been close to Hebrew, or even
identical to it.  But since we do believe there was a conquest, and
that we are not descended from the Kenaanim, I see no reason to suppose
that the Kenaanim and our ancestors spoke the same language, and much
reason not to.  As for archaeological finds, they are either post-
our conquest, or pre- the Kenaani conquest.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

> 
> Again, Chazal's explanation of Reuven[']s actions with Bilha
> CONTRADICT the text of the pasuk.  The pasuk states black on white
> that Reuven slept with Bilha ...
> 

It's not so simple.  Even if you are right, and I think that you
probably are, it's not so simple.  This has been discussed on Avodah
before, see v26n90 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n088.shtml#12).


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

From: Marty Bluke
>> In
fact, the Dor Revii says that it could be that at one time in history the
Chachamim understood the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin literally and only later
did Chazal darshen that it is money.<<

Please remind me who was the Dor Revii? Anyway if you are quoting him 
correctly, it is very difficult to understand this. What happened to the idea 
that the Torah shebe'al peh was given together with the Torah shebichsav, 
and the latter cannot be understood without the former?

Of course strictly speaking the literal meaning of "ayin tachas ayin" /was/ 
always the intended meaning! But it had to go /along with/ the Torah 
shebe'al peh explanation of how to carry that out. 

The Torah is saying, or implying, that if you take out someone's eye you 
/deserve/ to lose your own eye. (Otherwise the Torah would have said 
explicitly, "kesef tachas ayin, kesef tachas shein.") 

At the same time, there is no way an earthly court can carry out this 
punishment literally -- to make it exactly fair -- because if (for example) 
the court takes out the eye of a one-eyed man, they leave him completely 
blind, whereas when he took out the other guy's eye, the other guy could still 
see. Or let's say Reuven took out Shimon's eye but Shimon was half-blind 
with cataracts, whereas Reuven's eye is perfect -- so you are leaving him 
much worse off then he left Shimon. These are just examples. Maybe he 
knocked out a tooth but he himself has no teeth -- what is the court going to 
do, take away his dentures? No way to make it fair!

Also, knocking out someone's eye or tooth in retaliation for his crime 
does not in any way help his victim. Yes, the Torah says, strictly speaking 
you /deserve/ to have the same thing done to you that you did to the other 
guy, but it's much better for the victim to receive financial compensation 
for his injury than for him to have the fleeting satisfaction of seeing his 
attacker maimed in turn.

So, not to forget the question we started with, how could the Dor Revii say 
that the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin was originally taken literally, and 
only later did Chazal change it?! If he really did say that. 

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

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

 From http://ohr.edu/5756

Can you feel Purim just around the corner? Who isn't eagerly 
anticipating this annual Yom Tov extravaganza, featuring joyous 
dancing, Mishloach Manos, colorful costumes, and of course the 
Megillah reading? However, for many, it is the unique mitzvah to get 
drunk that they are eagerly awaiting. Since Purim is described in the 
Megillah[1] as a day of Mishteh (referring to a wine feast) and the 
Purim turnabout miracle occurred at such wine feasts, there is a rare 
dispensation from the norm, and an apparent obligation to drink 
wine.[2] Hopefully, the wine will enable one to experience a sublime, 
spiritual Purim.[3] Yet, uninhibited drinking may also unfortunately 
result in catastrophic consequences. If so, what exactly is the 
Mitzvah of drinking on Purim?

See the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150303/c30308ed/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Marty Bluke wrote:

> The Brisker Rav (Menachos 29b) has a fascinating explanation of
> this Gemara which may help answer your question.
>
> He explains that according to R' Yosi (Sanhedrin 21a) the Torah
> was given to Moshe Rabenu in ksav ivri. Ksav Ivri is very
> different then ksav ashuri and has no tagin. Therefore, Moshe
> Rabenu couldn't darshen the derashos that R' Akiva was making
> because the raw material for those derashos (the tagin) didn't
> exist in his time. It was only after Ezra changed the ksav to
> ashuris that these derashos could be made.

I don't see how that is helpful in any way. It seems to suggest that Ezra
invented the tagin. If so, the drashos on them would carry no more weight
than anything else that Ezra said or wrote. (Which is certainly something
that R' Akiva would want to learn, but I don't know how impressed or amazed
Moshe Rabenu would be over it.)

I must be missing something.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Man, 63, Avoids Wrinkles
63 Yr Old Man Shares Simple DIY Skin Tightening Method He Uses At Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f64ae7a7ea4ae61611st03vuc

> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> :... the Dor Revii says that it could be that at one time in history the
> : Chachamim understood the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin literally and only later
> : did Chazal darshen that it is money.
The Rambam vociferously denies this possibility. I believe Dor Rev?i?i
arrives at this possibility based on another principle the Rambam teaches, that
a later Beis Din can overturn the drash of an earlier Beis Din with their own
drash. How can the Rambam deny, then, that perhaps some earlier Beis Din though
and taught otherwise, just because in Tannaitic times everyone agreed to this
understanding?

But still another principle stated by the Rambam rounds out his thesis:
In the introduction to his Mishna commentary, the Rambam states that from the
time of Yehoshua to the Anshay Knesses HaGedola, every Beis Din maintained the
decisions of the previous ones. In other words, although they had the /right/
described in Mamrim 2:1 to overturn previous decisions, they in fact never did
so. So the understandings that we find unanimous among the sages from the time
of Shimon HaTsaddik represented the consensus of every Beis Din since Moshe Rabbeynu.
(Indeed, the only record I could find of a Beis Din disagreeing with an earlier one's
understanding of a posuk is(Zevachim 61b), which in fact has  the
Anshay Knesses HaGedolah overturning the Dovid HaMelech's Beis Din's understanding of a posuk./  
/

> R'MBerger:
> ...
> As for an earlier source positing that derashos may have been discovered
> later, see Rus Rabba (H/T the Malbim), that "'Moavi' velo Moavis" was not
> darshened yet until Boaz. And that Peloni's fear was kind of rational --
> what would he do if the next beis din overturns the ruling?

You wrote ?may.? I suspect that?s because although the sources say that 
this halacha was ??nischadesh?? in the days of Boaz/Shmuel HaNavi 
(author of Megillas Rus), and that word is invariably used to mean 
??newly created,?? it is possible to take it to mean ?renewed,? i.e. 
re-established after being in disuse for centuries (as Jews were 
separated from and uninterested in marrying the enemy Moabite?s women.) 
Point being, the permission to marry Moabite women was the original 
understanding of the pesukim transmitted by Moshe Rabbeynu.

The Brisker Rav takes it this way, and he is the one who posits that 
Ploni?s misunderstanding was that it was indeed a ??new?? halacha 
generated by Shmuel?s Bes Din, which a later Bes Din may overturn.

[And, one adds, even after being informed it was the original Oral Law?s 
understanding which cannot be overturned, he still feared?and turned out 
to be right?that later generations may again forget that fact, make the 
same error, mistakenly overturn the law and ruin things for his 
offspring]. This fundamental understanding of the law certainly seems to 
be the kind that the Rambam would consider as having come from Moshe 
Rabbeynu, along with the correct understanding of ??ayin tachas ayin,?? 
the identity of the ??pri eitz haddar,?? etc.]

Whether the connection of this understanding to the pesukim should be 
categorized as drash or (sophisticated, vs first-glance) peshat depends 
upon the definition of those terms and their usages, which differs among 
the rishonim.

In fact, the Rambam uses the word ??peshat?? to mean the
literal meaning of the words as opposed to their actual meaning: HH=e calls ??peshat??
the false reading that G-d has physical limbs. The actual meaning is otherwise. And drash is
still another thing, based upon the 13 Rules of Interpretation which, he
repeatedly says, came from Sinai. One can make the case that only interpretations
gained through the hermeneutic rules should be classified as drash, but not
so understandings gained form contextual analysis of the pesukim?such as with ??ayin
tachas ayin?? or the posuk?s connecting the Moabite marriage prohibition to the
Moabite?s failure to go out to the fields and help feed the Jews, for which the
women would not be held responsible Such understanding would be ??the actual
meaning?? and even perhaps be categorized as the peshat.

> One of RZLampel's pet questions is understanding the nature of derashah,
> so I'm CC-ing him. Here in particular, it's a bit interesting: OT1H,
> we have a Chazal telling us that ...a specific derashah was not made
> OTOH, we have a fundamental machloqes tannaim about how to group derashos
> into a system -- whether Hillel's 7, R' Yishmael's 13, R' Aqiva's...
As I mentioned above, the Rambam refers to the 13 middos
as having been received miSinai. When darshanning pesukim, there could be machlokos about /which/ middah
to use, he says, and/or how to use one, which can result in machlokos over the halacha.
Evidently, the different numbers (7, 13, etc.) are just different ways of classifying the
basic concepts of the middos, with a bit of machlokess involved in the specifics of how to apply them (such as
ribui u?miut vs klal u?prat).  

> ...Well, we could understand the Rus Rabba as either:
> a- A specific derashah was not passed down from Moshe to the beis din
>     that used it, theyu found the anomoly and turned it into halakhah
>     entirely in a later generation.
What anomaly?
> ...b- Moshe was made consciously aware of the existence of the derashah as
>     a textual oddity, but it was left to a beis din to find the din implied.
What textual oddity?

> c- MRAH was even given the din, but it was left to each beis din to decide
>     whether or not to "turn it on" lehalakhah lemaaseh.
>
> Both of which would fit the medrash.
>
> But, neither help understand the story of Moshe's visit to Rabbi Aqiva's
> shiur. Because the gemara implies that R' Aqiva made valid derashos that
> were not given to Moshe, even in the form of being given both 49 derakhim
> letamei -- 49 letaheir. At least, not given to Moshe in retail. The idea
> that Moshe was given the rules by which R' Aqiva worked is implied by
> HQBH's nechamah to him.
Rashi forestalls this problem by taking the memra (Menachos 29b) davka, that it was
specifically at the point in time ?when Moshe ascended? that he was shown this
vision of the future Rabbi Akiva darshonning. This happened, Rashi explicitly
notes, /before/ Moshe received any of the Torah. Moshe failed to understand
Rabbi Akiva's lecture simply because he had not yet received the information
upon which it was to be based. He was not yet told the verses, or the codes
planted in them, or the laws at which they were to hint. This is my response to
the following issue:

>
> And yet there are fundamental machloqesin about how to group the individual
> derashos into rules. So as we noted, it makes it hard to say R' Aqiva's
> valid derashos came from rule that Moshe received.
>
Zvi Lampel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150304/9251c2c2/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)