Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 43

Sun, 15 Mar 2015

• 1. Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Gershon Dubin)
• 2. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: archaeology and the exodus (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Yahrtzeit Haftarah (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Yahrtzeit Haftarah (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Marty Bluke)
• 10. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Mordechai Harris)
• 12. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Ki Im Gala Sodo el Avadav Haneviim (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Simon Montagu)
• 15. Re: archaeology and the exodus (Lisa Liel)
• 16. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Zev Sero)

There is a concept that when HKB"H sends a nevuah to a navi, he sends the
same nevuah to all living neviim but only instructs one navi to actually
say the nevuah.  Does anyone know where this comes from?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
How Old Men Tighten Skin
63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5501d4f39c2ff54f3669bst04vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150312/c9b2de73/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:38:09PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> Geonim and the Rach also understand R' Yosi literally although they
:> pasken against him,
:> although I am not sure what that even means, why do we need a psak on
:> a historical question?

: I would ask not only why we need it but rather what does it mean. Does a
: psak change whatever the "real" history was?

As came up repeatedly in discussions of aggadic stories and whether they
should be taken as historical, I don't believe chazal concerned themselves
with historicity. A story is treated has having the same value either
way.

A pesaq would therefore be about the implication lehalakhah. After all, if
this were the gemara, someone would be asking "lemai nafqa mina?" because
we always assume machloqesin are over actual halachic differences.

Holding like R' Yosi literally should mean something about using
non-Ashuris today.

I suggested one possibility, that R' Yosi's position implies that it
would still have the qedushah of stam. RMZBluke replied that while my
hava amina would work according to R Kasher, but R Chaim Kanievsky holds
that even according to R' Yosi, we did switch lehalakhah during AKhG's
day, and so sta"m in kesav Ivri today would be pasul.

So, we would still need to find how RCK would undertand the ge'onim
pasqaning like R' Shimon ben Elazar in this machloqes. But I still
expect the general principal that "lemai nafqa mina" lehalakhah will
hold. After all, that's how R' Kasher does discuss it

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:51:15PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: However, the problem with a population of 2 million Jews leaving Egypt is
: compounded by the addition of the "eruv rav"
: Contemporary estimates for the population of Cannan in this period is under
: 100,000 people
: http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=816

I expect that in some years or decades, archeologists are going to revise
down their estimate of how much evidence the average person of that era
left that we could find today.

Change that ratio, and one could have a lot more Kenaanim.

As well as a lot less expectation of evidence left in the Sinai by Benei
Yisrael.

But the article raises a different issue. Let's say there were 2mm Jews
entering Kenaan. Hashem tells us we won't drive out the Kenaanim too
quickly as then we would be overrun by animals. Could 2mm people not keep
the wild from overly encroaching on the area held by the (chronological)
end of seifer Shofetim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:48:43PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: 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)...

Didn't we discuss this recently? The minhag the Rama records is that
this was bedavqa when the aveil is a qatan.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:02:50PM +0000, Gershon Dubin via Avodah wrote:
: There is a concept that when HKB"H sends a nevuah to a navi, he sends
: the same nevuah to all living neviim but only instructs one navi to
: actually say the nevuah. Does anyone know where this comes from?

Studying seifer Mikhah in comparison to Yeshaiah, maybe.

That said, ein shenei nevi'im misnab'im besignon echad. So even if HQBH
send the same nevu'ah to all living nevi'im, their minds would wrap it
if different metaphors and I would think that means different elements
would come to the fore. Li nir'eh the message as each navi recieved
it would differ more like two people studying the same impressionist
painting than two people listening to the same lecture.

Tangentially, leshitas haRambam Hashem doesn't send nevu'ah. A navi
develops the skill of being able to directly experience metaphysical
truths. Hashem's role is when He decides to miraculously hide those
truths from the navi.

I call this a tangent, because either way one would assume that all
nevi'im would see the same metaphysical reality, and the same kelal
would be phrased as: Hashem wouldn't hide a truth from one navi while
allowing another to see it.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

On 03/12/2015 06:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:27:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : Until you can show how the passage can be made any sense of using your
> : translation of "X tachas X", it *can't* be pshat.   Until then it doesn't
> : matter what any authority says...
>
> Not even an undispuited gemara?

First of all, the gemara doesn't actually say what the pshat is.

But beyond that, even if it did, pshat *by definition* has to make sense.
If you can't read the passage with this translation and understand it
then it *can't* be pshat no matter who said it.  It can be a drash.
It can be a remez.  But it can't be pshat.


> Until then, we have an open question. I do not think rejecting chazal's
> position is an option.

Chazal didn't have a position.


> I suggested on-list a couple of years back that this is true of Tanakh
> in general. Text is about values, halakhah comes from derashah.

PaRDeS are all text.  They're just different ways of dealing with it.
I don't think pshat is about values; pshat is just about what the words
mean.  There are many levels of pshat, but they're all about what the
words objectively mean, not about what we take from them; it seems to
me that halacha and values are both matters of drash.  Medrash halacha
and medrash agada.


-- 
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 Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:49:16PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 03/12/2015 06:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
:> Not even an undispuited gemara?

: First of all, the gemara doesn't actually say what the pshat is.
...
:> Until then, we have an open question. I do not think rejecting chazal's
:> position is an option.

: Chazal didn't have a position.

YET AGAIN: If chazal call payment a derashah, they have a position
about what the peshat isn't. You don't need a derashah to derive the
same meaning as the peshat.

So, we do not know what they thought the peshat was (the open question),
but we do know that it's not about payment. Insisting peshat must be "the
monetary value of an eye paid for an eye" is rejecting chazal's position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar

On 03/12/2015 06:42 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:48:43PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> : 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)...
>
> Didn't we discuss this recently? The minhag the Rama records is that
> this was bedavqa when the aveil is a qatan.

That's not in the Rama.  You quoted it from the Maharil, but there's nothing
about it in the Rama.

-- 
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

R' Zev Sero wrote:
: Until you can show how the passage can be made any sense of using your
: translation of "X tachas X", it *can't* be pshat.   Until then it doesn't
: matter what any authority says...

Here is Artscroll's (literal) translation of the relevant pesukim:

17. And a man - if he strikes mortally any human life he shall be put to
death
18. And a man who strike mortally an animal life shall make restitution, a
life for a life
19. And if a man inflicts a wound in his fellow, as he did so shall be done
to him
20. A break for a break, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as he
will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted on him
21. One who strikes an animal shall make restitution and one who strikes a
person shall be put to death

What doesn't make sense using the above literal translation? Why can't this
be the pshat?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150313/295369fc/attachment-0001.htm>

>
>
>
> <<As came up repeatedly in discussions of aggadic stories and whether they
> should be taken as historical, I don't believe chazal concerned themselves
> with historicity. A story is treated has having the same value either way.
> >>
>

As an aside Dr Haym Soloveitchik  points out that one of the innovations of
Rashi was that he get a perush on every part of the gemara including
aggadot while
the sefardi commentaries tended to skip the aggadic portions

On another matter he has an article on the order of things in Mishne Torah
of the Rambam.
He points out that in many case (eg 4 shomrim) the order is strange.
In partilcar in hilchot shabbat Rambam starts with general halachot then
goes to pikuach nefesh then
other side issues and only later enumerates the melachot of shabbat first
by Torah law and the a repeat
by Rabbinic law. Thus one who wants to learn about cooking on shabbat has
to look in various places
in the Rambam (note that Tur and SA changed this so its all in one place)

In a second article he addresses the shabbat case (not many other examples
from the first article) that
the order was dictated by a defence (or attack) on the karaites.

I tend to doubt that his great-grandfather and namesake would be happy with
the answer


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150313/9ea2f210/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 06:02:50PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>: There is a concept that when HKB"H sends a nevuah to a navi, he sends
>: the same nevuah to all living neviim but only instructs one navi to
>: actually say the nevuah. Does anyone know where this comes from?

> Studying seifer Mikhah in comparison to Yeshaiah, maybe.

> That said, ein shenei nevi'im misnab'im besignon echad....

The Sfas Emes (3rd Ma'amar to Lech Lecha 5632) brings the idea based upon
the Zohar to explain that the call of Lech Lecha is a global broadcast to
which only Avraham tuned it (as an explanation for why Avraham - attempting
to answer Rashi's question).

- Mordechai

--
Mordechai Harris Teen Rabbi and Outreach Director
Baron Hirsch Congregation
400 South Yates Road, Memphis TN, 38120
        (Twitter:)   @BaronHirsch
https://www.facebook.com/mordechai.harris

On 03/12/2015 06:49 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:

> That said, ein shenei nevi'im misnab'im besignon echad. So even if HQBH
> send the same nevu'ah to all living nevi'im, their minds would wrap it
> if different metaphors and I would think that means different elements
> would come to the fore. Li nir'eh the message as each navi recieved
> it would differ more like two people studying the same impressionist
> painting than two people listening to the same lecture.

Not so, because the message is communicated to a navi independently of the
sensory experience.  http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1107.htm#6
So I agree that their minds would wrap it in very different metaphors,
but they would all get the same meaning.


> Tangentially, leshitas haRambam Hashem doesn't send nevu'ah. A navi
> develops the skill of being able to directly experience metaphysical
> truths. Hashem's role is when He decides to miraculously hide those
> truths from the navi.

He says the exact opposite: "Shehakel menabei et bnei ha'adam".   The skills
are necessary but not sufficient.   It's not like putting on infrared glasses
and suddenly seeing what's been there all along, or building a crystal set
and listening to whatever radio signals are in the air.  It's like building
a phone, and then waiting for someone to call you.  If you have no phone
you won't get any calls, but if nobody calls you the phone won't ring.
http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1107.ht
m  and http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1107.
htm#9


-- 
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 Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:16:38AM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> send the same nevu'ah to all living nevi'im, their minds would wrap it
:> if different metaphors and I would think that means different elements
:> would come to the fore. Li nir'eh the message as each navi recieved
:> it would differ more like two people studying the same impressionist
:> painting than two people listening to the same lecture.

: Not so, because the message is communicated to a navi independently of the
: sensory experience.  http://mechon-mamre.org/i/1107.htm#6
: So I agree that their minds would wrap it in very different metaphors,
: but they would all get the same meaning.

But would they all focus on the same meaning? If one sees an almond
branch ("ki shaqeid Ani la'asoso") and another navi sees a swift dear,
they were both shown the same message. But would the two nevi'im think
about the same details; or as I put it last time "different elements
would come to the fore" and consequently, I expected the message as
they understand it, rather than the "impressionist painting" Hashem
consistently showed them all.

BTW, the Rambam's view of nevu'ah is SO Aristotilian, I'm not sure you
can say anything about the Judaism of any of the derakhim any of us
follow by citing Yesodei haTorah 7:3.

But still, I don't see what you do in the Rambam you pointed to.
All it says is that the information would arrive via a mashal whose
pitaron would accurately leap to the navi's mind and be internalized
(yechaqeiq belibo) immidiately. Nothing about whether the perception of
the same Truth would be identical.

Two people seeing the same thing two very different but both accurate ways
is quite common. I'm just saying that do to nevu'ah being via mashal,
I would expect that big differences would be even more common than for
things we learn empirically.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
mi...@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> R' Zev Sero wrote:
> : Until you can show how the passage can be made any sense of using your
> : translation of "X tachas X", it *can't* be pshat.   Until then it doesn't
> : matter what any authority says...
>
> Here is Artscroll's (literal) translation of the relevant pesukim:
>
> 17. And a man - if he strikes mortally any human life he shall be put to
> death
> 18. And a man who strike mortally an animal life shall make restitution, a
> life for a life
> 19. And if a man inflicts a wound in his fellow, as he did so shall be
> done to him
> 20. A break for a break, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth; just as
> he will have inflicted a wound on a person, so shall be inflicted on him
> 21. One who strikes an animal shall make restitution and one who strikes a
> person shall be put to death
>
> What doesn't make sense using the above literal translation? Why can't
> this be the pshat?
>

I don't see why RZS' point is causing such trouble here: in v.18 "a life
for a life" has to mean financial compensation, particularly in the light
of v.21, [but even without v.21, what would if mean if "life for a life"
meant putting someone to death? Who would you put to death? An animal
belonging to the guilty person? The guilty person him or herself?]

So since p'shat of "x tahat x" in v.18 is financial compensation, p'shat of
the parallel expressions in v.20 is the same.

QED
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150315/88d39e9d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/12/2015 5:51 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> I have nothing to add to Micha's discussion of "elef"
> I recall that Ben Gurion argued that elef mean clans
>
>
> However, the problem with a population of 2 million Jews leaving Egypt 
> is compounded by the addition of the "eruv rav"
> Contemporary estimates for the population of Cannan in this period is 
> under 100,000 people
>
> http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=816

The problem with this is threefold.  First, they're looking at the wrong 
point in history.  They should be looking at the end of the Early Bronze 
Age, beginning of Middle Bronze.  Second, the techniques used for such 
estimates are almost laughable in their political correctness.  
Essentially, they look at rural Arab towns today and assume that our 
towns must have had roughly the same populations.  Finkelstein has said 
this repeatedly.  If you like, I'll pull out a book and copy one of his 
many quotes on the subject.  Thirdly, the entire Middle East has 
suffered from massive climate change.  Eretz Yisrael is vastly less 
fruitful than it used to be, largely due to the poor Arab stewardship of 
the land.  Their goats and sheep virtually shaved it to the soil.  Only 
creative efforts by the Jews who returned have managed to restore it to 
the extent that we have.  Jews are smart.  We were able to support much 
larger populations.

Lisa

On 03/14/2015 08:02 PM, Simon Montagu wrote:
>
> I don't see why RZS' point is causing such trouble here: in v.18 "a
> life for a life" has to mean financial compensation, particularly in
> the light of v.21, [but even without v.21, what would if mean if
> "life for a life" meant putting someone to death? Who would you put
> to death? An animal belonging to the guilty person? The guilty person
> him or herself?]

Let it be one or the other; pshat is fine with ambiguity, so without v21
I would agree that this was a viable pshat: I would say it means a life
must be forfeited, and whose life is not specified here.  Perhaps there
is another pasuk somewhere else that will resolve the ambiguity, or
perhaps both readings will remain valid.  Practical halacha doesn't
derive from pshat anyway, so it doesn't have to be resolved.

Or perhaps I would say it means the person's life, just as it means his
break, eye, or tooth.  Nor would I be bothered by the harshness; there
are many things in the Torah that seem harsh, so there's no *logical*
reason why this could not be more of the same.  If I can swallow Ir
Hanidachat, I could swallow the death penalty for killing animals.
Perhaps I would take it as a Divine endorsement of PETA.

It's v21 that makes this reading impossible.  V21 contrasts the
penalties for striking an animal and striking a person.  Now an
astute reader will notice that v18 specifies "mortally", and
v21 doesn't, and so he will try to resolve the contradiction
that way: killing an animal is death, per v18, but merely wounding
it can be paid for, whereas even wounding a person is death.  This
would indeed resolve the apparent contradiction with v18, but at
the expense of contradicting v19.

Note that al pi *drash* there is no contradiction.  Drash does not
allow redundancy in the Torah, so v18 and v21 *must* be talking
about different cases.  And indeed the gemara decides that v21 must
be talking about wounding, not killing, and the second half refers
to ones parents, whom it is a capital offence to wound.  So drash
needs some other way to learn that "tachat" means money.  But pshat
not only has no problem with redundancy, but does not allow such a
tortured reading: al pi pshat "adam" *must* mean any person
(including a non-Jew, by the way), not just a parent.

-- 
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


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



_______________________________________________
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.)