Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 17

Mon, 02 Feb 2015

• 1. Re: Keli Sheni, no matter how hot (Simon Montagu)
• 2. Re: Keli Sheni, no matter how hot (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: [Mesorah] Yid-mu vs Yi-demu (Michael Kopinsky)
• 4. cutting tephillin retzuos (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Michael Orr)
• 6. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 7. Do mother in laws really hate their daughter in laws? (Marty Bluke)
• 8. The Curious Case of the Karpef (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Do mother in laws really hate their daughter in laws? (Zev Sero)

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah
<avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> So too coffee and tea. They are steeped in hot water to extract flavor; that
> is not cooking.

I remember reading in some book in English when I was young that if it
isn't bishul it's dash, but nobody seems to say that today. Is my
memory faulty or was that a da`at yahid that nobody holds by any more?

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 06:59:17AM -0800, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
: I remember reading in some book in English when I was young that if it
: isn't bishul it's dash, but nobody seems to say that today. Is my
: memory faulty or was that a da`at yahid that nobody holds by any more?

The only dosh I heard of WRT tea is in the form of the toladah of
sechitah, that of squeezing a lemon into your tea. Either drop the slice
in and make sure not to squeeze the slice with your spoon afterward,
or squeeze into the sugar before adding the combination to your tea. (MB
320:22) As long as there is enough sugar to hold all the lemon juice.

Of course, my not hearing of something is far from proving it doesn't
exist.

I would find it an odd use of dosh, though, since the leaves don't start
out wet.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             There's only one corner of the universe
mi...@aishdas.org        you can be certain of improving,
http://www.aishdas.org   and that's your own self.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Aldous Huxley

Why does a dagesh in the daled double the mem in the shoresh? Should
that turn it to d-d-m?

On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 7:06 PM, Mandel, Seth via Mesorah
<meso...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> the real difference is in the dagesh. With a dagesh, it is from the root
> d-m-m, meaning to be silent (and, of course, the shwa is na'). Without
> the dagesh, it is from the root d-m-h, meaning to be similar (and the
> sh'wa is silent).

> Cherchez la dagesh, which is in place of doubling.
...
> ________________________________________
> From: Mesorah on behalf of Gershon via Mesorah [meso...@lists.aishdas.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 4:50 PM
> To: mes...@aishdas.org
> Subject: [Mesorah] Yid-mu vs Yi-demu

> Can our learned membership opine on the Sheva in this word in the
> shiras hayam having a different meaning as na or nach?

Just as an aside on iron and bronze I saw this in an archaeological website

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/f
ree-ebooks/ten-top-biblical-archaeology-discoveries/?mqsc=E3787678&;
utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=BHD+Daily%20Newsletter&utm_ca
mpaign=E5C130

This from a much later, i.e. destruction of the first Temple

10. Babylonian Siege Tower and Arrowheads

Uncovered during excavations in Jerusalem?s Jewish Quarter during the
1970s, this 22-foot tower, with walls 12 feet thick, helped defend
Jerusalem against the Babylonian invasion in 586 B.C. Around the base of
the tower, a thick layer of charred wood, ashes and soot bore witness to
the raging fire that accompanied the Babylonian destruction. Among the
charred rubble, excavators found five arrowheads: four of iron, and one of
bronze. The bronze arrowhead was of the Scytho-Iranian type used by the
Babylonian army. The iron arrowheads were typical of those used by the
Israelites. Lying in the ashes, these five small artifacts gave poignant
testimony to the furious clash that preceded the fall of Jerusalem.





-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150131/265a3539/attachment-0001.htm>

In Parsha Yisro after Moshe recounts to his father-in-law the good that Hashem has done for the?
Jewish people, including the overthrow of Paroh?s army at the sea, the
pasuk (Shemos, 18:9) states ??Vayichad Yisro?. ?The simple meaning is that
Yisro rejoiced in this good news.?
Rashi brings another interpretation from the gemara (BT Sanhedrin 94a)
where Shmuel interpreted?this to ?mean that Yisro?s flesh ?pricked up? in
discomfort, with goosebumps, on hearing of the?destruction of the
Egyptians. ? The gemara immediately explains and extends this idea: ??As
Rav [or?more likely Rav Pappa ? per Gra and Torah Temimah] stated, this is
as the popular saying has it ?Do not?disparage a non-Jew [Aramai] before a
ger [convert] unto the tenth generation?.?
The Torah Teminah discusses other places in the gemara and halachah where
the status of a ger?continues to the 10th generation of the ger?s
descendents, and concludes: ? ?If so, since the status of?ger continues
until the 10th generation, it is prohibited to disparage a non-Jew in front
of him [and his?descendents during this time i.e. to the 10th generation].?
?
(Rav Steinsaltz in his notes on San. 94a cites the Gra who explains that
only after the 10th generation of?descendents is the non-Jewish blood less
that a one thousandth, which is the most stringent standard?for bitul.)
I have not seen any sources that dismiss this prohibition on the basis that
after all it is only based on a?folk-saying, albeit one quoted by Chazal. ?
?Would anyone see this as a reasonable interpretation?lema?aseh, i.e. to
dismiss this principle as being non-binding? ?(I am not sure if this issue
is addressed?in any of the codes.)
?If this is indeed a prohibition, how is it that there seems to be such a
tolerance ?for speaking publicly in?a disparaging way about non-Jews
generally? ?I do not want to give examples, so as not to single out?any
particular sources, but I expect that almost everyone can identify their
own examples of?this from sources high and low in authority.
?Nowadays, almost any Jewish audience of a significant size can be assumed
to have gerim among it. ?Certainly when we extend those who we must be
concerned not to offend to include all who have any?ger forebear within the
previous 10 generations(!), it would have to be assumed with almost
absolute?certainty that this prohibition (if it exists) would apply to
virtually every Jewish audience (and perhaps?even the vast majority of Jews
as individuals, since most born-Jews do not know their entire family
tree?back ten generations,and therefore may need to assume that they more
likely than not have the threshold?of at least 1/1000th of non-Jewish
lineage). ?
This seems a problem if this is indeed a prohibition.
Of course, aside from any prohibitions, making negative generalizations
about a whole class of people?is as a rule going to be false in any event,
and makes those articulating such generalizations sound?crude. ? (I wish
some speakers would realize what a turn-off it is for some people in their
audience?when they start talking about ?the goyim? in disparaging terms as
if they were a monolithic entity.) ?
The gerim and their descendents who are close enough to real non-Jews may
be simply best placed to be able to?recognize that falseness and crudeness.
?Alternatively, ?gerim and their descendents may still maintain?relations
of hakaras hatov and/or responsibility to non-Jews like their non-Jewish
ancestors and?relatives, so as to make ?total rejection and lack of concern
inappropriate and likely to be offensive. ?

Michael OrrToronto

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150201/68d9d449/attachment-0001.htm>

On 02/01/2015 05:11 PM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:
> The gemara immediately explains and extends this idea: ?As Rav [or
> more likely Rav Pappa ? per Gra and Torah Temimah] stated, this is as
> the popular saying has it ?Do not disparage a non-Jew [Aramai] before
> a ger [convert] unto the tenth generation?.?
>
> The Torah Teminah [...] concludes: ?If so, since the status of ger
> continues until the 10th generation, it is prohibited to disparage a
> non-Jew in front of him [and his descendents during this time i.e. to
> the 10th generation].?
> [...]
> I have not seen any sources that dismiss this prohibition on the
> basis that after all it is only based on a folk-saying, albeit one
> quoted by Chazal.

First find a source that *accepts* this alleged prohibition.  The Torah
Temimah saying something doesn't make it so.


> Would anyone see this as a reasonable interpretation lema?aseh, i.e.
> to dismiss this principle as being non-binding? (I am not sure if
> this issue is addressed in any of the codes.)

Again, without finding it in an authoritative source for halacha, there's
no basis for even discussing it.


> If this is indeed a prohibition, how is it that there seems to be
> such a tolerance for speaking publicly in a disparaging way about
> non-Jews generally?  

Which is further indication that nobody, or hardly anybody, accepts
that there is such a prohibition in the first place.


> Of course, aside from any prohibitions, making negative
> generalizations about a whole class of people is as a rule going to
> be false in any event

How so?  Most generalisations are true.  That's how they come about.

And do sisters really hate their brothers wives? That is what the Mishna
(Yavmos 117a) says (which was recently learned in Daf Yomi), regarding the
giving of testimony about the death of the husband. The Mishna says that
even though that 1 witness (even non-kosher) is normally believed to say
that the husband died 6 women are not believed including the mother-in-law
and sister-in-law because they are assumed to hate the wife and therefore
would lie to mess them up. Rashi explains the reason relates to the wife
inheriting the husband.

In my experience, with both family and friends this is simply not the case
today. I think that just about everyone reading this would agree. Given
that, how do we relate to this halacha today? On a broader note, how do we
relate to these kinds of statements in the Gemara which were clearly put
there l'doros, but don't seem to apply today? Why would these be codified
in the Gemara if they were things that would change in future generations?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150202/7102e856/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The title of this article will probably engender much curiosity. What
exactly is a karpef? No, it is not a type of French pastry, nor is it
referring to the vegetable dipped into saltwater at the Pesach Seder.
Rather, it is a term used to refer to an area not designated for
human habitation, and whether we know about it or not, it actually
affects us all...>>

More more on the halachot of karpif (thats how this author spells it) see
this weeks article by Rabbi Kaganoff
do-people-live-in-the-zoo

http://rabbikaganoff.com/do-people-live-in-the-zoo/

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150202/87ef0c99/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:42:41AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 02/01/2015 05:11 PM, Michael Orr via Avodah wrote:
:> The gemara immediately explains and extends this idea: "As Rav [or
:> more likely Rav Pappa -- per Gra and Torah Temimah] stated, this is as
:> the popular saying has it 'Do not disparage a non-Jew [Aramai] before
:> a ger [convert] unto the tenth generation'."

:> The Torah Teminah [...] concludes...

:> I have not seen any sources that dismiss this prohibition on the
:> basis that after all it is only based on a folk-saying, albeit one
:> quoted by Chazal.

: First find a source that *accepts* this alleged prohibition.  The Torah
: Temimah saying something doesn't make it so.

It would seem from Rav / R Papa, not the Torah Temima's discussion
thereof, that unless you know the yichus of every Jew in the room back 10
generations, you may not insult a non-Jew in the presence of other Jews.

(Rav's name is found in our shas, R' Papa's in the Yalqut. I didn't see
the Gra inside, to know why he prefers the Yalqut's attribution.)

I don't see the TT adding anything to the prohibition when he writes:
:>                                ... "If so, since the status of ger
:> continues until the 10th generation, it is prohibited to disparage a
:> non-Jew in front of him [and his descendents during this time i.e. to
:> the 10th generation]."

The TT appears to be merely explaining, not extending, what the gemara
already assurs.

...
:> Of course, aside from any prohibitions, making negative
:> generalizations about a whole class of people is as a rule going to
:> be false in any event

: How so?  Most generalisations are true.  That's how they come about.

And the plural of anecdote is data? Selection bias makes this false.
People tend to report and remember the outrageous, so that generalizations
are often based on the rare but notable.

Aval ein kan hamaqom leha'arikh, as whether generalizations about groups
of people are more often true or false isn't really on-topic here.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On 02/02/2015 12:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> : First find a source that *accepts* this alleged prohibition.  The Torah
> : Temimah saying something doesn't make it so.
>
> It would seem from Rav / R Papa, not the Torah Temima's discussion
> thereof, that unless you know the yichus of every Jew in the room back 10
> generations, you may not insult a non-Jew in the presence of other Jews.

Since when?  Neither Rav nor R Papa say anything of the kind.


> I don't see the TT adding anything to the prohibition when he writes:

*What* prohibition?   Neither Rav nor R Papa prohibited anything.
If the TT says it's prohibited, he made it up out of whole cloth.


> The TT appears to be merely explaining, not extending, what the gemara
> already assurs.

Where does the gemara asser anything?



> :> Of course, aside from any prohibitions, making negative
> :> generalizations about a whole class of people is as a rule going to
> :> be false in any event
>
> : How so?  Most generalisations are true.  That's how they come about.
>
> And the plural of anecdote is data? Selection bias makes this false.
> People tend to report and remember the outrageous, so that generalizations
> are often based on the rare but notable.

Sometimes that happens.  But most generalisations survive and spread because
they are confirmed by people's experience, and by common sense. "When you
hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" is a good rule for life, even if
once in a long while it fails.

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:34:50PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >It would seem from Rav / R Papa, not the Torah Temima's discussion
: >thereof, that unless you know the yichus of every Jew in the room back 10
: >generations, you may not insult a non-Jew in the presence of other Jews.

: Since when?  Neither Rav nor R Papa say anything of the kind.

Well, we clearly are translating the quote differently. Here's my
take. R' Papayas spoke about "vayichad Yisro" in response to hearing
about the Egyptians.

    Amar Rav: hainu de'amrei inshei:
        Rav said, this is what people [mean when they] say:
    "Giyura, ad asarah darei
        A geir, until 10 generations,
    lo sivazeh Aramai qameih."
        do not insult an 'Aramean' in front of him."

My quotes around Aramean are justified IMHO because this quote is about
the Mitzriim. Descendents of Cham living in Egypt, are not literally
nor almost Aramaim, as Aram is a son of Sheim and namesake of an area
of the Northern Levant.

How do you read these word so as not "say[ing] anything of the kind"?
Kindly provide your translation of this quote.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 01:22:57PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:>     Amar Rav: hainu de'amrei inshei:
:>         Rav said, this is what people [mean when they] say:
:>     "Giyura, ad asarah darei
:>         A geir, until 10 generations,
:>     lo sivazeh Aramai qameih."
:>         do not insult an 'Aramean' in front of him."

:> My quotes around Aramean are justified IMHO because this quote is about
:> the Mitzriim. Descendents of Cham living in Egypt, are not literally
:> nor almost Aramaim, as Aram is a son of Sheim and namesake of an area
:> of the Northern Levant.

: Actually your quotes are not justified.  People who speak Aramaic are talking
: about Arameans, not Egyptians.

So the "amrei inshei" is about the local Aramaim, but Rav applies it
to Iyov's response to news about the Mitzriyim? You're likely correct,
but it's a distinction without a difference. What is important to us is
what Rav meant, not the common idiom he used to phrase it.

:> How do you read these word so as not "say[ing] anything of the kind"?
:> Kindly provide your translation of this quote.

: Your translation is perfectly correct.  Which is why I'm astonished that
: you then ignore it and pretend there's a prohibition hiding in there
: somewhere.

"Lo sevazeh" (or my "perfetly correct" translation of "do not insult")
isn't a statement of prohibition????

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On 02/02/2015 01:20 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2015 at 12:34:50PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : >It would seem from Rav / R Papa, not the Torah Temima's discussion
> : >thereof, that unless you know the yichus of every Jew in the room back 10
> : >generations, you may not insult a non-Jew in the presence of other Jews.
>
> : Since when?  Neither Rav nor R Papa say anything of the kind.
>
> Well, we clearly are translating the quote differently. Here's my
> take. R' Papayas spoke about "vayichad Yisro" in response to hearing
> about the Egyptians.
>
>      Amar Rav: hainu de'amrei inshei:
>    Rav said, this is what people [mean when they] say:
>      "Giyura, ad asarah darei
>    A geir, until 10 generations,
>      lo sivazeh Aramai qameih."
>    do not insult an 'Aramean' in front of him."
>
> My quotes around Aramean are justified IMHO because this quote is about
> the Mitzriim. Descendents of Cham living in Egypt, are not literally
> nor almost Aramaim, as Aram is a son of Sheim and namesake of an area
> of the Northern Levant.

Actually your quotes are not justified.  People who speak Aramaic are talking
about Arameans, not Egyptians.


> How do you read these word so as not "say[ing] anything of the kind"?
> Kindly provide your translation of this quote.

Your translation is perfectly correct.  Which is why I'm astonished that
you then ignore it and pretend there's a prohibition hiding in there somewhere.

On 02/02/2015 04:29 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> And do sisters really hate their brothers wives? That is what the
> Mishna (Yavmos 117a) says (which was recently learned in Daf Yomi),
> regarding the giving of testimony about the death of the husband.

Not in every case, and probably not even in most cases, but it's true
often enough that it's dangerous to rely on a mother-in-law's or
sister-in-law's testimony to permit a remarriage.  Tension between
mothers-in-law and daughters (and sons) -in-law is legendary.  The
vast number of jokes about this relationship shows that there is an
underlying truth to it, recognised even by those lucky enough not to
have personal experience with it.  And indeed we can look at India,
where there is a significant number of cases where this relationship
turns literally deadly.  That is an extreme example, but it shows
starkly a fact of human nature; if in India mothers-in-law sometimes
go as far as *actually* killing their daughters-in-law, then in other
cultures we may assume there are many examples of mothers-in-law
*wanting* to do so, or wishing someone else would do so.




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



_______________________________________________
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.)