Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 26

Tue, 17 Feb 2015

• 1. FW: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Mandel, Seth)
• 2. Torah only (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: Stairs in the Mikdash ()
• 4. haftarah before yahrtzeit (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission... (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Torah only (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Judaism: How Could the Torah Allow Slavery? (Micha Berger)

< About half way through his talk at
: https://soundcloud.com/lawrence-schiffman Dr. Schiffman discusses
: why there are differences how different groups pronounce Hebrew.
: He claims that pronunciation that one hears in most Young Israels
: was "introduced"  by Artscroll some years ago and is something
: completely new!

<While I agree that it doesn't represent a real mesorah, I find his proposing this explanation very very odd.

<R/Dr Schiffman, Prof Levine, and I are all old enough to remember when
ArtScroll first started publishing. (Megillas Esther, 1975.) And R/D LS
should remember that those YI members were talking like that before
ArtScroll had a chance to influence them.>

Indeed, his talk was really surprising, because several things he said were
against facts that he could easily discover.  The above is one example. 
Another is his claim that the Sefaradim living in EY and Y-m before the
State spoke Hebrew.  Like the case above, one does not have to go to
historical documents to know this: there are many Israelis, Ashk'nazim and
Sefaradim, whose grandparents or parents lived in Israel before 1948, and
they can tell you that the Sefaradim spoke Arabic and the Ashk'nazim
Yiddish, but both very heavily influenced by Ottoman Turkish.  There are
recordings still around of people at that time: the Yiddish is mostly
comprehensible, but many words are not.  The same for the Arabic speakers.
D Schiffman is not a linguist, and a lot of what he said about languages is simply not true.
For example, he claimed that the fact that the Babylonian tradition of
Hebrew did not distinguish between a patach and segol was because the
language they spoke (Arabic) did not.  True, Arabic has not segol.  But
neither does it have a tsere or a cholam, both of which are present in the
Babylonian tradition.
I was taught that when speaking in public a scholar should stick to his area of expertise.
So let us go to the Avodah-ness of the topic, as R. MIcha so appropriately
termed it, where everyone here has an opinion and may consider himself an
expert.  The question of what is a masorah in pronunciation is indeed a
difficult one.	Remember, we are talking about language, where none other
than the world-renowned linguist Dr. Humpty Dumpty, pointed out everything
is based on tradition:


'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't ? till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.'


What the very erudite Dr. Dumpty taught Alice was that in language, we have
to rely on tradition to communicate.  This is not only with regard to
words, but pronunciation.  Were I to decide that "glory" is pronounced as
if written "diory," no one would understand what I mean.  Language is the
ultimate mimetic phenomenon.
It is a basic axiom of linguistics that all languages change.  They do, but
not so quickly that the speakers lose their moorings, else one would have
the results of the Tower of Babel.  And as they change, they change in such
a way that all speakers in that area are "on board" with the changes.  But
most people are unaware of the changes as they happen.	I am an old
curmudgeon, and I still remember when I heard the idiom "she's like,
"really?" and I'm like, "sure."  O-hoh, I said to myself, a neologism using
"like" in the meaning of "say."
This is relevant to Avodah-ness in that masorah means that, a change that
is made by the community unconsciously.  If a rabbi opines on an issue, and
the tzibbur follows his opinion, it is not a masorah, whether "right" or
"wrong." (Of course, after 200 years, when everyone does it, it is another
matter.)
A masorah of pronouncing Hebrew is the same.  People may choose to follow a
different masorah, but it is still a masorah... UNTIL the time that a
"scholar" or "rabbi" or "fool" decides that he he will change it according
to his opinion.  His opinion may be "right" or "wrong," but it is not a
masorah.
In heintige teg, when people want to follow the latest idea on what is
"right" or "wrong" and mimesis has been thrown to the dogs, people drop
what they and their parents have done for "something better," and it is so
with pronunciation.  The Hebrew teachers in EY in the 30's decided that
they would drop any masorah and create a new amalgam called "Israeli
Hebrew."  And another amalgam was created in yeshivos. And a couple of
others, including the mixture of Israeli pronunciation with Ashk'naz that
Micha and all of us elderly observers were familiar in the late 60's and
70's.
What is "right"?  The Moshiach Ben David, may he come quickly, will tell us.  In the meantime, I can observe and tell what is a masorah.



Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
11 Broadway, New York, NY  10004

Voice (212) 613-8330     Fax (212) 613-0718     e-mail mand...@ou.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150215/df004df2/attachment.htm>

<<: Certainly the Briskers would not agree

I presume they would, following NhC 4:4. If you take it prescriptively,
it says that TOrah is like immersion in a miqvah, it is metaheir you from
such flaws in and of itself. Thus eliminating the need for Mussar or any
conscious effort to correct character -- shtaigin in learning alone will
metaphysically straighten you out. But the goal is the same whether you're
Yeshivish or a Mussarnik. As the Gra (or the editor of Even Sheleimah)
puts it, "Explaining all the ways of breaking the middos ra'os in general,
for that is the shoresh of all of avodas H' yisbarakh." They disagree
drastically on strategy. But "perfection of character" is indeed the goal.
>>

from the recent Chumash mesorat haRav based on derashot of RYBS - shemot -
mishpatim

" Gedolei Yisrael represent spitiuality refinement in conduct sensitivity
sympathy and compassion. Yet their primary focus is upon londus, a formal
and abstract discipline in the study of Torah. Strangely the laws of the ox
that gores or the egg that is laid on Yom Yov somehow enhances the human
ethical personality elevating both the mind and heart. How does such study
affect morality?
There is only one answer. Torah is min hashamayim - it is the word of G-d.
Torah enobles one's character rdeeming a person from frivolity, vulgarity
and cruelty. It elevates him providing meaning to his life "

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150215/f11bed93/attachment.htm>

 

From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>> To keep the question  Torah-oriented and in Avodah territory: I imagine 
that most korbanos walked up  to the mizbe'ach under their own power, and 
the question is how they got down.  Were they carried or dragged?<<

Akiva Miller

 
 
>>>>>
 
See Parshas Yisro, Shmos 20:21 "Make Me a mizbeach of earth vezavachta alav 
 es olosecha, and you shall sacrifice on it your offerings...."  Rashi says 
 "alav" here does not actually mean "on it" but "next to it," and he goes 
on  to say that it cannot mean "on it" because shechita was not done on top  
of the mizbeach.  
 
BTW he also explains here that the mizbeach mentioned here was the copper  
mizbeach; it was hollow, and was filled with earth (I understand that means 
when  they traveled they didn't shlep the dirt with them, but filled up at 
the next  stop).  I don't know if that was only true of the copper mizbeach 
in the  Mishkan or also in the BHM'K.
 

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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150215/ad86d8b7/attachment.htm>

As best I can tell, the source for saying haftarah the Shabbat before a
yahrtzeit is the Zohar in acharei mot (77a) which refers to a "yanukah"
(tinok) saying a haftarah.  Given the "lower" level of the maftir aliya (we
let a non bar mitzvah have it in circumstances) doesn't it seem odd to make
it the priority? Or am I missing something?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150215/90397cbc/attachment.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/nesjknn

By Rabbi Berel Wein

Many of the great Torah commentators, especially of the last few 
centuries, have attempted to deal with this issue.

One of the most puzzling, if not even disturbing subjects discussed 
in biblical and halakhic detail appears in this week?s Torah reading. 
That subject matter concerns itself with the institution of slavery ? 
of literally owning other human beings and defining them as human 
chattels of others.

See the above URL for more.  YL

On 02/15/2015 10:58 PM, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>
>  From http://tinyurl.com/nesjknn
>
> By Rabbi Berel Wein
>
> Many of the great Torah commentators, especially of the last few centuries, have attempted to deal with this issue.
>
> One of the most puzzling, if not even disturbing subjects discussed in
> biblical and halakhic detail appears in this week?s Torah reading.
> That subject matter concerns itself with the institution of slavery ?
> of literally owning other human beings and defining them as human
> chattels of others.

Pure apologetics.

The Torah doesn't command us to acquire slaves, any more than it commands
us to acquire mansions or livestock or anything else -- even purchasing
tefillin is not a mitzvah! -- but it does command us, once we have slaves,
to keep them forever and not to free them, which would be inconceivable if
it thought there was something wrong with slavery.

250 years ago the idea that there was anything wrong with owning humans
was confined to a radical fringe, and for all we know in 100 years it will
be seen as a crazy intellectual fad, like alchemy or the Divine Right of
Kings.

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:30:18PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> Presumably my openng quote of "sekhar mitzvos behai lama leiqa" means
:> there is something significant lacking, and not that it's entirely
:> absent. But is there reason to think it is pointing out exceptional cases?

: Why do you assume that protection is a form of sechar, rather than an
: automatic effect of the mitzvos?

I do not assume those are two different things.

And you know I have problems with "automatic effects" on the spiritual
plane as they provide exceptions to Middas haDin, Middas haRachamaim,
"kol de'avad Rachmana", in short -- to hashgachah peratis, with no
explained reason.

(Unlike physical laws, without which bechirah is meaningless.)

I would therefore think that any automatic effects are exactly what a
soul who did that action needs, and therefore just another model with the
same results as HP. And also, that in order to be just, they would
be identical to sekhar va'onesh.

:> And of course my primary point -- is there anything about life as you
:> actually observe it to indicate that Chazal mean that even for us,
:> the cases where tzadiq vera lo are exceptional

: Looking around me life appears to be completely random, and I don't
: see signs of Yad Hashem any more often than one would expect to "see"
: them even if it weren't there.  But the Torah tells me that it's there
: anyway, and that my observations are flawed.

So, righteous people don't suffer, and all your observations were flawed?
Every time you hear of a criminal who got away with the profits of his
deed, you were mistaken? (Or perhaps it was the "automatic effect" of some
other action???) Is that really tenible?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 07:39:45PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:>: Certainly the Briskers would not agree
: 
:> I presume they would, following NhC 4:4. If you take it prescriptively,
:> it says that Torah is like immersion in a miqvah, it is metaheir you from
:> such flaws in and of itself. ... But the goal is the same whether you're
:> Yeshivish or a Mussarnik....                            They disagree
:> drastically on strategy. But "perfection of character" is indeed the goal.

: from the recent Chumash mesorat haRav based on derashot of RYBS - shemot -
: mishpatim

:                                            ... Strangely the laws of the ox
: that gores or the egg that is laid on Yom Yov somehow enhances the human
: ethical personality elevating both the mind and heart. How does such study
: affect morality?
: There is only one answer. Torah is min hashamayim - it is the word of G-d.
: Torah enobles one's character rdeeming a person from frivolity, vulgarity
: and cruelty. It elevates him providing meaning to his life "

The question is, does RYBS mean that the supernatural character of Torah
somehow enhances personal ethics, or that learning shor shenagach es
haparah in a way that qualifies as talmud Torah is to do so in a way
that finds and internalized its supernatural character?

The same split I ascribed to Yeshivish vs Mussardik understandings of
NhC could apply here too. Although the automatic supernatural effect take
on talmud Torah seems the comparatively more straightforward of the two.
But before being too medayeiq in lashon, I don't even know whose wording
it is -- from RYBS's notes, or from the Chumash's compilers (R Arnie
Lustiger et al)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:05:48AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: I recall learning a gemara in which a rectangle 50 by 100 is to be
: made into a square.  What is involved is dealing with the square
: root of two.  RASHI presents way of getting the square by cutting it
: into strips.  Is this not mathematics?  Is this Torah?

Indeed that was how much of geometry was done back then. Thus the
expression "squaring the circle" as a reference to finding its area.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

At 06:04 PM 2/16/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 09:05:48AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
>: I recall learning a gemara in which a rectangle 50 by 100 is to be
>: made into a square.  What is involved is dealing with the square
>: root of two.  RASHI presents way of getting the square by cutting it
>: into strips.  Is this not mathematics?  Is this Torah?
>
>Indeed that was how much of geometry was done back then. Thus the
>expression "squaring the circle" as a reference to finding its area.

And, of course,  there is the way Tosefos in Succah finds the area of 
a circle by "unwinding"  it into a triangle, and then using the 
formula for the area of a triangle, namely one-half the base times the height.

Rabbi Dr. Leon (Eliezer)  Ehrenpreis,  Z"L,  once pointed out to me 
that this method will not work for other figures.  It works for a 
circle because the radius of curvature is constant.  It will not work 
for a figure where the radius of curvature is not constant.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150216/dee3b8b9/attachment.htm>

This question has long bothered me, as it has bothered Rabbi Wein. And for
lack of any better alternatives, I went with the "it's a b'dieved
concession" ideas. But R' Zev Sero has responded:

> The Torah doesn't command us to acquire slaves, ... but it does
> command us, once we have slaves, to keep them forever and not to
> free them, which would be inconceivable if it thought there was
> something wrong with slavery.

Say what you will about acquiring a slave, or the conditions placed on the
master/slave relationship, but this issur seems to trump it all. To
paraphrase RZS, can any of the chevra conceive of a way to reconcile this
issur with the idea that there's something wrong with the very concept of
slavery?

Granted that this issur applies only to an Eved Canaani. So what? Even so,
he is a Tzelem Elokim. He is more than a Baal Chayim, he is a M'daber. If
there's something fundamentally immoral with the idea of owning another
human being, why would it be assur to free him?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How Old Men Tighten Skin
63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54e29f5cc1cee1f5c54b7st02vuc

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:53:32AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
:> The Torah doesn't command us to acquire slaves, ... but it does
:> command us, once we have slaves, to keep them forever and not to
:> free them, which would be inconceivable if it thought there was
:> something wrong with slavery.

: Say what you will about acquiring a slave, or the conditions placed on
: the master/slave relationship, but this issur seems to trump it all...

: Granted that this issur applies only to an Eved Canaani...

But it's not because of approval of slavery.

The Ran (Gittin Rif-20b, on 38b) says the problem is "lo sechaneim"
prohibiting giving the "gift" of freedom as much as other gifts. Which
is why, he adds, one may free an eved to benegit someone else. (E.g. R'
Tarfon allows a mamzer to marry a shifchah, have children together,
and then free the children.)

It is also mutar to free an eved Kena'ani for the sake of a mitzvah,
even derabbanan. (Rambam, Hil' Avadim 9:6)

The Rambam explains that this is why the gemara allows freeing a slave
to complete a minyan. Also, if an attractive (or willing) shifchah is
being treated as hefqer, we free her so she could marry and cease being
a michshol.

The Rosh (4:23) agrees; although this might be specifically for a mitzvah
of the rabim. But in either case, he is assuming that we hold like Ravina.
(Which is equally implied by the Rambam.)

The SA follows his rule in this case (YD 267:79) and holds like the Rosh
and the Rambam.

This second loophole also fits the lo sechaneim explanation. Or, it is
also consistent with a second sevara, that there is a problem of forcing
chiyuv mitzvos on the eved by freeing him. That we loathe creating a
Jewish sinner more than we have problems with avdus. In which case, if the
status quo also would involve sinning, we would be justified in freeing
the eved.

Which would also explain the right of an eved Kenaani to insit on moving
to Israel, or being sold to a master who would; or to refuse to be taken
out of EY. He is freed if sold from EY to chu"l. And that one who does
flee his master in chu"l and reaches EY remains free.

Third, if the eved is literally Kanaani, there is also "viyhi Kenaan
eved lamo". But that's of only historical interest since Sancheirev.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 02/17/2015 02:45 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> : Granted that this issur applies only to an Eved Canaani...
>
> But it's not because of approval of slavery.
>
> The Ran (Gittin Rif-20b, on 38b) says the problem is "lo sechaneim"

How can one mitzvah be cited as the motive for another?  I don't
understand this language that the "problem" with violating one law
is that it is like violating a different law.  "Le`olom bohem ta`avodu"
is in the same Torah as "lo sechoneim", after all.

Also, if "lo sechoneim" applied then it would be a lav (in addition to
the asei), and it wouldn't be allowed for the purpose of fulfilling an
asei.


>  Or, it is
> also consistent with a second sevara, that there is a problem of forcing
> chiyuv mitzvos on the eved by freeing him

That would be easily remedied by requiring his consent.


> Third, if the eved is literally Kanaani, there is also "viyhi Kenaan
> eved lamo". But that's of only historical interest since Sancheirev.

"Le`olom bohem ta`avodu" specifically refers to the "nations that surround
you" and to the children of gerei toshav, as opposed to the 7 nations, from
which we are not to take slaves because they are to be wiped out.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 03:36:06PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> The Ran (Gittin Rif-20b, on 38b) says the problem is "lo sechaneim"

: How can one mitzvah be cited as the motive for another?  I don't
: understand this language that the "problem" with violating one law
: is that it is like violating a different law.  "Le`olom bohem ta`avodu"
: is in the same Torah as "lo sechoneim", after all.

Take a look at the Ran, see how you read it.

Meanwhile, your quote from Vayiqra 25:46 is mentioned in Seifer haMitzvos
(235) and the Yad (Avadim 9:6), but that would mean that he holds like R'
Aqiva and R' Eliezer, (Gittin 38b), wheras R' Yishma'el's position --
that this gives you reshus to old onto an eved kenaani forever (rather
than obligating) is attributed to the stam mishnah. Whereas a question
against Rav (chiyuv) is dismissed as "tana upalig". And Rabba rejects
his own quote of Rav.

The whole sugya is trying to deremine whether freeing a 10th for your
minyan is because mitzvah derabbim ovverides mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira
or because the author holds like R' Yishma'el. When the statement is
found in R Eliezer's mouth, who also explicitly says it's assur, the
gemara suggests "mitzvah derabbim shaani".

Also, this machloqes RA and RE whether the pasuq means reshus or chovah
is one of three listed in Sotah 3a.

But in any case, it looks like the gemara ends by assuming the stam
mishnah is that the pasuq gives reshus.

Anyway, the pasuq you take for granted is a chiyuv may or may not be, it's
a machloqes rishonim. Thus, no question on the Ran. (BTW, the Ran says
the use of the pasuq is asmachta anyway -- any issur is derabbanan. Which
would explain the plethora of gemaros that mention exceptions.)

See also the Rashba, "mitzvah shani", particularly toward the end, who
also links "le'olam bahem ta'avodu" to "lo sechaneim".

Also see the Ramban, if you could, because I don't understand whether
he is saying le'olam works like lo sechaneim, or (more like the Ran)
is an asmachta for an instance of lo sechaneim.

The Chinuch (#347) follows the Rambam, although he gives mishorshei
hamitzvah that it keeps us from the need for avadim Ivriim, and instead
has more nakhriim alienated from AZ and doing avodas haBorei. Which would
still answer RAM's question in a manner other than "because the Torah
approves of slavery". It appears that the Chinukh holds that when the
general regional economy forces slavery as the only way for a community
to make ends meet, avadim Kenaanim are the lesser evil.

: Also, if "lo sechoneim" applied then it would be a lav (in addition to
: the asei), and it wouldn't be allowed for the purpose of fulfilling an
: asei.

Again, ask the Ran, not me. I assume because lo sechaneim speaks to
motive. If you're freeing them for personal benefit or for a mitzvah,
it's not a matenas chinam.

:> Or, it is
:> also consistent with a second sevara, that there is a problem of forcing
:> chiyuv mitzvos on the eved by freeing him

: That would be easily remedied by requiring his consent.

Thereby producing geirei arayos. Not a good solution.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You want to know how to paint a perfect
mi...@aishdas.org        painting?  It's easy.
http://www.aishdas.org   Make yourself perfect and then just paint
Fax: (270) 514-1507      naturally.              -Robert Pirsig


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



_______________________________________________
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.)