Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 11

Sun, 16 Feb 2025

• 1. Re: one breath? (Danny Schoemann)
• 2. Re: challenges (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Teyqu - Peirush or Hevel? (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: challenges (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Teyqu - Peirush or Hevel? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: The impracticality of Torah criminal law (Micha Berger)
• 7. The 7 mitzvos of Bnei Noach (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: Teyqu - Peirush or Hevel? (Simon Montagu)
• 9. Re: The impracticality of Torah criminal law (Marty Bluke)

Check the Kitzur SA in 141:14

He explicitly states that it's wrong for the congregation to pre-say Aseres
Bnai Homon. Rather they should be quiet and listen to the Reader.

And if the Reader cannot say "it" in a single breath, that's acceptable.

Good luck implementing in your local shul.

Kol Tuv

- Danny
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250213/bb98abce/attachment-0001.htm>

.
from R' Joel Rich:

> "Nobody is ever given a challenge that they can't succeed" is
> an oft stated hashkafic point. Do you agree? Does it mean that
> one can always overcome the temptation to sin? Discuss.

Many years ago, I mentioned this maxim to our recently departed listmember,
Rav Elazar Mayer Teitz z"l.

Unfortunately, I do not remember his exact words or tone, but he did point
out that the soldier who encounters an Eishes Y'fas Toar HAS been given a
challenge that he WILL fail at, unless he follows the Torah's prescription.

I mulled that over for a few days, and then I realized that I did not fully
understand his point. Unfortunately, I never got around to asking him for a
clarification, and now I never will. But for the sake of this conversation,
my question is this:

Is Eishes Y'fas Toar *AN* exception to the maxim, or is it *THE* exception?
Is it merely an example, illustrating that the adage is objectively wrong,
for it is indeed possible for a person to be in an impossibly difficult
situation? (I suspect that this is what Rav Teitz meant, but I'll never be
sure.) Or perhaps, Hashem designed us so that every challenge *can* be met
successfully, as the adage claims, except for this one isolated case, for
which He designed a specific antidote.

I suspect that Rav Dessler would side with the first option, that the
Eishes Y'fas Toar is merely *an* example. The whole idea of the Bechira
Point is that there are areas where my yetzer tov has such strong control
that there's really no challenge at all, *AND* that there are other areas
["areas" in the plural!] where my yetzer hara has such strong control that
the challenge is a lost cause. Rav Teitz might say that the unique thing
about Eishes Yfas Toar is that this particular challenge is above
*everyone's* Bechira Point.

Akiva Miller


.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250214/710521a4/attachment-0001.htm>

Subject was: Was: BDE Rav Elazar Meir Teitz

R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:

> Teyqu is not an acronym.  It is an abbreviation, in a local dialect,
> of the Aramaic word teyqum, a word cognate to the Hebrew taqum, and it
> means "let it stand".

This fascinated me enough to do some research.

> Teyqu is not an acronym

This is the view brought down in the Tishbi (dictionary) from Eliyohu
Bochur (a.k.a. Elia Levita d. 1549) who goes so far as to call this
acronym "Hu Peirush Shel Hevel".
(https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10988900?page=27 to see
the original.)

Hmmm... who is the fellow? so you turn pages to the postscript
(https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10988900?page=5) where
he thanks The "Kel Elyon for finishing the work in the year 5311 since
creation".  Nice.

Then he continues "Which is the year 1541 l'Bi'as Meshicheinu
VeGo'aleinu YShU Yisborach Shmo l'Olmei Olomim. Amen". <Barf/>

That would explain why the Tishbi  (dictionary)  posits that Teyqu
can't be an acronym alluding to The Tishbi answering Teyqu statements.
After all, it's been 2025 years since the hangman was declared
Moshiach, and nobody has answers for the Teyqu conundrums. Since
Moshiach is proceeded by The Tishbi, either he hasn't come or this
acronym is Hevel.

So I went back to an older Dictionary, apparently the first Talmudic
Dictionary: the Oruch, whose author died in 1106. the Oruch in TK - ??
(https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sefer_HeArukh%2C_Letter_Tav.167) states
that Teyqu means something in a bag and it's not known what's inside.
(He then refers you to GM
(https://www.sefaria.org.il/Sefer_HeArukh%2C_Letter_Gimel.212)  where
the laws of Teyqu resolutions are discussed.) Then there's a
postscript.

In parentheses prefixed by A"B (Amar Binyomin Mussafia, the Mousaf
haOruch d. 1675) he ends with "what people say that Teyqu is an
acronym, is a Siman but not a Peirush".

Also see the Sefer Hapliah - from before 1390 - who quotes this
acronym see https://tinyurl.com/Teiyqu. (Source:
https://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/53711/501)

Point being that Teyqu as an acronym, is nothing new. That it refers
to The Tishbi was also known over 600 years ago - and only dismissed
as Hevel by somebody whose biography on Wikipedia is full of
references to Christianity - and his prologue explicitly references
Yoshke.

> When the Sages of the Talmud declined to
> resolve a dispute, and elected to let a question stand unresolved,
> they sometimes ended the discussion with the word teyqu -- let [the
> question] stand.

True.

> This is mildly interesting, but much more interesting (I think) is why
> a reader of this mailing list has bothered to send in an article, that
> you are now reading, correcting the mistake.

I beg to  differ - it's not a mistake.

<snip>
> But I think that this is a mistake worth lingering over.  When a Jew
> accepts a bogus etymology for a word that appears more than 300 times
> in the Talmud, it is not a morally neutral event, like when one of my

You're treading on thin ice; you posit it's an etymology whereas it's
a well-known Siman.

> students told me that "swag" stands for "stuff we all get" (a true
> story).

Well, the internet agrees. Google it. Not that we pasken by Google,
but, as in the case of Teyqu it has taken on a life of its own and now
swag (originally a word "stolen" from Scandinavia) is an acronym of a
well-established (and well-liked) industry.

Similarly, we are no longer gay on Purim and Carmel's fantastic "Aids
to Talmud Study" (1974) had to be renamed "Aiding Talmud Study"
(1986).

> A Jew has a moral obligation to understand the words of the
> Talmud, whereas a non-Jew has no moral obligation to investigate the
> etymology of English words, and that means that a Jew has a moral
> obligation not to repeat mindlessly the bogus etymologies he has heard
> from others, without giving them any thought.

Which is why certain Gedolim rebuffed self-declared Moshiachs by
enthusiastically asking them to solve a Teyqu. (They usually responded
by fleeing.)

> Moreover, and more to the point, this is a pernicious mistake.  It is
> not just a false belief, it is a false belief of a piece with, and
> reinforcing, a whole constellation of other false beliefs, all leading
> us in the wrong direction.  The halakha is that Eliyahu may not
> declare to us, through prophecy, the resolution of an unresolved
> question in halakha.

Who decided it's through prophecy? Maybe it's through his Mesora or
his superior knowledge of the source material - including pieces we
have lost over the years. After all he was a Talmid of Moshe Rabeinu.

> If Eliyahu declares to us, through prophecy, the
> resolution of an unresolved question in halakha, then we must put him
> to death as a false prophet, because questions in halakha are not
> decided by prophecy.

What would be the source of that? In the Talmud they excommunicated
for this type of behavior.

> It is our duty to reconstitute the Sanhedrin and
> resolve these questions ourselves, and not to wait for a Divine
> messenger to resolve them for us.

We cannot. If the final editors of the Talmud wrote Teyqu then it
cannot be resolved using all the knowledge available to us. As opposed
to ending with Kashya, where solutions are possible. (As to why they
are not solved? I have no idea.)

> As has been stated before on this
> mailing list, Eliyahu can have one vote on the Sanhedrin, if he wants
> a seat on the Sanhedrin and if we let him have one, but it is we who
> have both the power, and the duty, to reconstitute the Sanhedrin, and
> resolve these questions ourselves.

If it has been stated before on this mailing list then it must be true. ;-)

<The rest is snipped - it's beyond the Teyqu issue.>

- Danny, waiting longingly for the great Teyqu era.

P.S. I edited the Hebrew entry Teyqu on Wikipedia

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 05:42:18AM +0200, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
> "Nobody is ever given a challenge that they can't succeed" is an oft stated
> hashkafic point. Do you agree? Does it mean that one can always overcome
> the temptation to sin? Discuss.

People end up in the psych ward. Clearly they were given challenges they
couldn't handle.

I think it is generally ends up a platitude designed to redefine
"success". Point out a counterexample, and the advocate will say,
"But maybe their life needed... and so they really succeeded. Even if
it didn't feel that way to them or seem to make them happier."


As for challenges of temptation to sin in particular:

Oneis Rachmana patrei and tinoq shenishba says there are times when a
challenge is indeed too hard, and the person isn't held accountable. Or to
look at it another way: the very definition of sin and being challenged
with temptation to sin has the opportunity for success baked in. Without
such opportunity, is there a "sin" or the temptation qualify as a
"challenge"?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The greatest discovery of all time is that
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   a person can change their future
Author: Widen Your Tent      by merely changing their attitude.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                 - Oprah Winfrey

On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 12:07:53PM +0200, Danny Schoemann via Avodah wrote:
> R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter wrote:
>> Teyqu is not an acronym

> This is the view brought down in the Tishbi (dictionary) from Eliyohu
> Bochur (a.k.a. Elia Levita d. 1549) who goes so far as to call this
> acronym "Hu Peirush Shel Hevel".
...

I with all due respect for R Eliyahu Bachur, I would think this is an
overstatement, for a couple of reasons:

1- Yes, as a peirush it may well hevel, but as a remez, just a cute
mnemonic, it adds color to the expression. Arguably one of the primary
reasons for Eliyahu haNavi's return is to reboot the halachic process
with someone who can give true Mosaic Semichah.

(Another less relevant but important role: someone has to open schools
for Benei haNeviim, or else Nevu'ah will remain a lost art.)

RYF, as quoted by RDS, continued:
>> As has been stated before on this
>> mailing list, Eliyahu can have one vote on the Sanhedrin, if he wants
>> a seat on the Sanhedrin and if we let him have one, but it is we who
>> have both the power, and the duty, to reconstitute the Sanhedrin, and
>> resolve these questions ourselves.

Actually, it may be up to Eliyahu to reconstitute the Sanhedrin, as
the only living holder of semichah in the chain from Moshe. I know the
Rambam has a means for reviving true semichah, and since the Mechaber was
involved in one attempt to implement it, we know he held of it as well.

However, in practice neither attempt to use the Rambam's formula so far
-- R Yaaqov Beirav (1538) and R Moshe Heberstam (2004) -- managed to
recreate a chain of further students. The Rambam's pesaq about reviving
semichah may require Messianic levels of Jewish unity anyway. Im which
case, we won't need it -- Eliyahu haNavi could give semichah.

So this turning "teiqu" into a reminder that there will be a Sanhedrin
again and Eliyahu haNavi will be able to reinstate a team that can pasqen
all these open questions isn't "hevel"....

... But it's not "peirush", either. Or in other words, it is only a
peirush shel hevel" if you assume it's a peirush at all.

And isn't that what basically the Musaf haArukh wrote some 350 years ago?

2- Sometimes these post-facto folk etymologies take on more significance
than the real etymology.

For example, "yarmulke". It is a Slavic word meaning "cap", and is used
for whatever the common kind of caps men wore in that particular region.
Any linkage to the Aramaic "yarei Malka" is a folk etymology.

BUT...

If the masses didn't think the word was associated with the feelings of
standing in the shadow of Divine Greatness, would the word "yarmulke"
have caught on? Or would Judeo-English had ended up with "kopel" or
"kippah", because "yarmulke" would have just been another local word
and never have gotten market share?

"Yarmulke" may be a popular term today more because of the folk etymology
than the historical one. So, which is more important?

Who knows who first came up with the acronym for "teiqu"? Maybe it
only became a buzzword because they liked the association to Eliyahu
haTishbi. And maybe if "teiqum" was indeed the origin, that is even why
they shortened "teiqum" to "teiqu" -- so as to create the play on words!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 We are great, and our foibles are great,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   and therefore our troubles are great --
Author: Widen Your Tent      but our consolations will also be great.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                      - Rabbi AY Kook

On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 05:32:31PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> After learning the first 45+ dapim of Sanhedrin it is patently clear that
> it's absolutely impossible to convict anyone of a crime in a Beis din. The
> rules of evidence and the need for hasraah toch kdei dibbur make it
> virtually impossible to convict anyone. The Ran in derasha 11 famously
> writes that there was a parallel justice system run by the king which was
> more practical...

REMT z"l chimed in when I raised a similar question during bayis sheini.
With no (legitimate) melekh in the picture. Or would the Ran say that
despite the illegitimacy of the Chashmonaim's melukhah, they would still
have the duty of creating a civil law...

My suggestion about what was done in the last days of Bayis Sheini, to
which REMT objected as being too much guesswork without enough basis:

We know that they had kippot. Which in general were used as jails before
trial. Although in cases where a proven murderer couldn't get the
mandated death sentence (like a lack of eidus or hasra'ah), they would
administer a death penalty there. (Sanhedrin 81b, Rambam Hil' Rotzeiach
4:8)

So a kippah can be used to administer a prison sentence too.

So I wondered out loud about how other people dangerous to society were
treated. Not necessarily murderers. Perhaps most dangerous criminals
ended up in prison.

We talk about the on-the-job-training that a thief leased into avdus
can get. But what about the thief who is such a repeat offender no one
would rent him?

Why is there at most hints to this in the gemara? Because the gemara is
dealing with Torah mandated penology, and this is by definition outside
the kind of thing Ravina and R Ashi set out to codify.

As I said, REMT thought I was just being too fanciful. Less about
the existence of civil law, because there are examples of that from
autonomous communities centuries after the end of semichah. Including
death penalty. More about the idea that Chazal were okay with imprisonment
in particular.


> 1. The parallel justice system is not described anywhere, not in the
> written Torah and not in the oral Torah. Why not? Do we have any idea what
> the rules were?

Tzedeq tzedeq tirdof and other such phrases that become platitudes are
about having justice in general.

And if it's one of the 7 Mitzvos Benei Noach, wouldn't we be obligated too?

> 2. The ran writes that the kings justice system was to fill in the gaps.
> However, in truth it seems to me that it would have to have been the main
> system as the Torah system could never punish anyone. Why would the Torah
> create a justice system that is never used?

To teach an inculcate values.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   isn't complete with being careful in the laws
Author: Widen Your Tent      of Passover. One must also be very careful in
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Daf Yomi recently learned the sugya and I was left with a number of
fundamental questions.
1. What is the mechayev for Bnei Noach to keep the 7 mitzvos? We have matan
Torah where we accepted the Torah. Where is the equivalent by the Bnei
Noach?
2. How are they supposed to know what to do? The Gemara has a fundamental
dispute as to what are the 7 mitzvos. One Tanna takes out cursing hashem
and eiver min hachai and replaces it with kilayim and sirus.  All the
tannaim learn them out from pesukim in bereishis.  How are the Bnei Noach
supposed to know that annd who is right? Also, how were the people from
creation until bereishis was written supposed to know what the 7 mitzvis
are? The Gemara also has a dispute as to which arayos are prohibited for
Bnei Noach based on derashos. How are the Bnei Noach supposed to figure
that out?

I saw a fascinating Chizkuni who addressed these questions in a way. The
chizkuni (Bereishis 7:21) asked how could hashem punish the dor hamabul
when they weren?t chayav in anything? He answered that gezel is a mitzvah
that they should have known without any chiyuv. The obvious question on the
chizkuni is when did they become chayav in the 7 mitzvos especially things
like eiver min hachai which are not something you could figure out?
The Mishne Lamekech (melachim 10:8 at the very end) quotes a question from
the yefe toar. How could Rav Yitzchak say that the Torah shoujd have
started from hachodesh hazeh, if so we wouldn?t know what the 7 mitzvos
are? He answers that Torah is just for the Jewish people and not for the
non Jews. But it begs the question, so how do the non Jews know what the 7
mitzvos are?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250216/88df4dd1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 2:49?PM Danny Schoemann via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> Hmmm... who is the fellow? so you turn pages to the postscript
> (https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10988900?page=5) where
> he thanks The "Kel Elyon for finishing the work in the year 5311 since
> creation".  Nice.
>
> Then he continues "Which is the year 1541 l'Bi'as Meshicheinu
> VeGo'aleinu YShU Yisborach Shmo l'Olmei Olomim. Amen". <Barf/>
>
> <snip>

> Point being that Teyqu as an acronym, is nothing new. That it refers
> to The Tishbi was also known over 600 years ago - and only dismissed
> as Hevel by somebody whose biography on Wikipedia is full of
> references to Christianity - and his prologue explicitly references
> Yoshke.


Astaghfirullah!

You are quoting from Paul Fagius, the Christian translator of the Tishbi
into Latin, not from Eliyahu Bahur himself, who was not a Christian and
never became a Christian. See
http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/02/did-elias-levita-become-christian-also.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250216/ff3799b0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 5:42PM Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> 1. The parallel justice system is not described anywhere, not in the
>> written Torah and not in the oral Torah. Why not? Do we have any idea what

> Tzedeq tzedeq tirdof and other such phrases that become platitudes are
> about having justice in general.

> And if it's one of the 7 Mitzvos Benei Noach, wouldn't we be obligated too?

You mentioned the 7 mitzvos of Bnei Noach with regards to dinim. That also
is a very difficult area. There are no guidelines at all given in the Torah
to what is dinim. How are the non Jews supposed to figure out what kind of
justice system to create?


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)