Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 049

Tuesday, November 21 2000

• RE: Kol yimei chayecha
• Re: Kol yimei chayecha
• Ashrei Introduction
• Re: faith
• RE: Evolution
• Holding & kissing (tzitzit)
• RE: Krias Shma and tzitzis
• RE: Krias Shma and tzitzis
• RE: Kol yimei chayecha
• Kol yimei chayeicha
• Women and talmud torah
• RE: Nishmat
• TSBP
• Re: Nishmat
• Finding Nimrod

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:16:06AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: If there is a Mesorah about Tzitzis how come there was not a mesorah wrt to
: zchiras mitarayim?

MSB:
> How can you ask that? HKBH said one, but didn't say the other.

Which one did HKBH say:
1) Layla lav zman tzitzis
or
2)Mazkirin Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:16:06AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:: If there is a Mesorah about Tzitzis how come there was not a mesorah wrt to
:: zchiras mitarayim?

MSB:
:> How can you ask that? HKBH said one, but didn't say the other.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:44:25AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Which one did HKBH say:
: 1) Layla lav zman tzitzis
: or
: 2)Mazkirin Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos?

He said both, but you flipped around #2 mid-discussion to its hefech.
My sentence intended to say that Hashem did say "layla lav z'man tzitzis"
but didn't say "layla lav z'man zechiras y"m".

But even given that misunderstanding, I still wonder how can you ask
why a mesorah exists for any one thing and not for another.


On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 12:41:15PM -0500, Edward Weidberg wrote:
: AIUI, there's no need min haTorah to say davka the last posuk in parshas
: tzitzis to be be mekayim the mitzva of zechiras yetzias mitzrayim....
:                                                     So this could not
: have been the source for REBA's hava amina that ain mazkirin yetzias
: mitzrayim balaylos.

Chazal chose a pasuk that is only associated with daytime, since it's
in the parashah of tzitzis. REbA's question is: Can we learn from this
that they only thought you had to day this during the day? Otherwise,
why wouldn't they have chosen a pasuk that wasn't time-specific?

To mention a chakirah I made in the past: this lashon could be taken as
a ra'ayah that Anshei Kineses haGdolah assumed that techiras yetzi'as
Mitzrayim is only by day. As you note, it could not be taken as its makor.

Similarly, what was the hava aminah about my question WRT from R'
Gamli'el's "matzah zu"? RG picked a lashon that is specifically about
re'iyah, by which we can point "zu" to the matzah. Would he have chosen
this lashon if he didn't hold that pointability was important?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Looking through Tehillim 145, it seems that there are two main themes:
praising Hashem for being good to all things and publicizing this praise.

For example: Tov Hashem lakol verachamav al kol ma'asav. Yoducha Hashem
kol ma'asecha vechasidecha yevarchucha.

These two pesukim demonstrate both of the themes. The first praises
Hashem and the second speaks of publicizing this praise.

Most interesting about this perek is that it is very universal.
When praising Hashem, it uses very inclusive terms that refer to all
people and all creatures.

That is why it is so surprising that we say the two Ashrei pesukim as
an introduction. Those pesukim are very particular to Jews.

So why did the minhag develop to add those two introductory pesukim that
seem to contradict the message of the perek?

Gil Student

On Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 08:20:55PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
:                                   there will not be even apparent
: inconsistencies in the time of moshiach between Torah and science, history,
: archeology etc so there will no longer be multiple systems but a single
: system.

You reminded me of a theory I had, but I didn't actually find a makor
to back it up.

In R' Kook's hashkafah, the fact that all dichotomies are really illusory,
perceptions that are products of the human condition and not really there,
plays a pretty important role. After all, everything comes from the same
Borei, and He is absolutely One.

Even down to the idea that chol is really that in which we can't see
the kedushah. "Lichvodi barasiv..." if the chol didn't really embody
kudshah ila'ah, it wouldn't exist. (Which ties into his view of secular
Zionism...)

The progress of history is one of unification. Ge'ulah is when these
perceptions of barriers fall.

Ad kan my understanding of R' Kook.

As noted in these "pages" in the past, the Rambam and Ramban argue about
the identity of olam haba -- the Rambam holds it's the non-gashmi olam
ha'emes that one goes to upon death; and the Ramban holds the term
refers to the world after techiyas hameisim. (This ties into their
machlokes about whether there will be a second misah after techiyas
hameisim. Re'eih sham.)

Now for my chiddush... According to R' Kook, both ought to be true.
At some point the line between olam hazeh and the "place" one's neshamah
goes after misah is proven to be an illusion, and the two reach unity.
The "shamayim chadashim vi'aretz chadashah" of li'asid lavo is both.
Which would be a huge chiddush in terms of the definition of techiyas
hameisim -- the line between being alive in this world and the post-death
existance in the other would vanish.

It all seems muchrach to me from what R' Kook did write, but it's a
pretty big chiddush to make without a makor.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> AIUI, scientists tend to regard evolution as more of a theory than a
> hypothesis.

We have to differentiate between believing in the process of evolution (i.e.
that such a process took place) and knowing *how* it took place (the
mechanism).

The former is what most scientists regard as a theory -- there is too much
fossil evidence of an evolutionary process to ignore.

However, the *mechanism* is still treated (at least by serious scientists)
as hypothesis.

Akiva
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I've been following the "how to hold and when to kiss tzitzit" thread
waiting for someone to bring up the question of the origin of kissing
on the three mentions of tzitzit in K"Sh.

Perhaps someone can supply the earliest recommendation to kiss on the
word tzitzit or tzitzit hakanaf. AFAIK, the custom competes with saying
the Yom after Shaharit in the lateness of its appearance on the scene.

To arouse other list members and perhaps start an "origin and development"
thread, I translate below the words of Natronai Gaon as quoted in the
Siddur Hageonim V'hamekubalim:

"On the question of whether one should hold the tzitzit when reciting
K"Sh: This not the derekh of the chakhamim or their students. It is the
derekh of arrogance (yehirut).... As one has looked at the tzitzit at the
'atifa, and has made the b'rakha, why hold them afterward? If one is [to
hold the tzitzit], when one reaches ukshartem one would hold the tefilin
and, if that, then when one reaches ukhtavtem 'al mezuzot beitekha
one would have to dash to his home to place his hand on the mezuza.
Therefore, it is necessary to teach and explain to one who does this
(hold tzitzit) that he should not."

Note that, in Natronai Gaon's time, while some were thinking about getting
into touching or holding, they were still far from the kissing stage.
Natronai Gaon's opposition, however, didn't succeed in preventing
progression from stage to stage.


To add to the other side points on holding tzitzit, the Sh"A O"Ch in
addition to the remez of the ten knots of two tzitziot already mentioned
in a posting also points out that adding the 16 strings to the knots
makes 26 which equals Shem Havaya.

The HID"A in Birkhei Yosef says that he was taught to wrap the front
tzitzit around the ring finger. The reason he gives is that counting
the words of parashat tzitzit on the fingers, starting with the thumb
for Vayomer,one arrives at the ring finger for the first tzitzit and
also re'item oto, the oto comes out on the ring finger. He refers to
the Maharashal in the Yam Shel Shlomo, P"K of Yevamot, Sof Siman 3.
He then notes the AR"I's opinion of all four between ring and pinky that
has become accepted..

I would add that the word tekhelet of petil tekhelet also comes out on
the ring finger.

Any comments?

K"T,
David

I do gather all four corners of my tallis before sitting down so as to
ensure that the tzizis don't touch the floor.  Does anyone have other
solutions to this problem (which would allow me to keep the four corners in
the four corners)?  (I realize that wearing a gartel would solve this
problem, but....)

KT
Aryeh

Aryeh Stein wrote:
>                                         Does anyone have other solutions to 
> this problem (which would allow me to keep the four corners in the four 
> corners)?

When you get ready to sit, hold your back tzitzis in your hands.  Sit down but 
before you lean back, tuck those tzitzis behind you and then lean back on them.

Gil Student

On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 10:16:06AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:: If there is a Mesorah about Tzitzis how come there was not a mesorah wrt to
:: zchiras mitarayim?

MSB:
:> How can you ask that? HKBH said one, but didn't say the other.

On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 10:44:25AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Which one did HKBH say:
: 1) Layla lav zman tzitzis
: or
: 2)Mazkirin Yetzias Mitzrayim baleilos?

Micha Berger
> My sentence intended to say that Hashem did say "layla lav z'man tzitzis"
> but didn't say "layla lav z'man zechiras y"m".

> But even given that misunderstanding, I still wonder how can you ask
> why a mesorah exists for any one thing and not for another.

My  question was {intended to be} rhetorical.

IOW, mimah nafashach 
if we KNOW layal lav zman tiztis w/o a befeirush passuk than how come
we don't also know mazkirin YM balaylos. IOW, how can we know ONE and
not the other? AISI neither is befeirush.

You are saying layl lav zman tztitzis is from Hashem. How is it?
Is it HLMM? IOW is this halchic drush of ur'issem miSinai while the
drush of Mazkirin YM balalylos is not?

And is it a fact that before Ben Zoma paragraph #3 was omitted at night,
or was it merely recited but w/o connecting it to YM until Ben Zoma?
So if not for tzitzis and not for YM why bother? Perhaps it was fomulaic,
since we say 3 paragraphs at shacharis we ALSO say 3 at mamriv, but
the imperative for tzitzis is absent at Mmariv. But comes along BZ and
restores a reason...

I hope this helps.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

> No, REbA didn't know why until he heard Ben Zoma. Which implies that
> people definitely WERE saying it -- otherwise REbA wouldn't have had
> anything to wonder why about.

I don't see that from the text in the Haggadah.  Lo zachiti sheteiamer
yetziat Mitzrayim ad shedarshahh (mapik-he) ben Zoma... is a funny turn
of phrase.  Sheteiamer is feminine, so the object must be "yetziat 
Mitzrayim", yetziah being feminine.  So it becomes "I did not merit that
Yetziat Mitzrayim should be said until Ben Zoma darshened it (the yetziah)"
The passage is from the Mishnah Berachot 1:5, talking about the 3rd
paragraph of Shma.

It would seem more likely that at least REbA wasn't saying yetziat 
Mitzrayim, presumably the 3rd paragraph in Shma, until Ben Zoma gave
him a convincing argument to do so.  And if REbA wasn't doing so, as
av beis din, odds are there were lots of people who weren't saying it.

Now that I look in the Yerushalmi on Berachot 1:5, I see that in fact,
in their time the custom "there" (in Bavel?) is to say the whole 3rd 
paragraph of Shma at night, while "here" (in EY?) the custom is not to
say it.  In fact, they take a little survey, and some say the whole
3rd paragraph at night, and some don't.  Which might explain why they
don't have any discussion of it in the Bavli: for them it was settled,
everyone says zechirat yetziat Mitzrayim in Shma at night, so they could
launch right into the aggadita about yemot haMoshiach and Avraham.

So it would seem that REbA may have had the custom not to say it, until
ben Zoma gave him a convincing argument to say it.

As for sippur Yetziat Mitzrayim on Pesach, I expect that *was* being
done, no, since the korban Pesach was done at night?

With regard to the thread based on R Weinberg's comments on talmud torah for
women

R Mozeson, in Echoes of the Song of the Nightingale, provides  the following
sevara in the name of RYBS on permitting learning by women.

R Eliezer holds that teaching women torah is teaching them tiflut.

R Eleazar ben Azariah holds that in hakhel, nashim ba'im lishmoa.  The
Rambam, who paskens like rav Eliezer, does permit teaching them torah she
bektav.  This is because of the mitzva of hakhel, but he limits the 
applicability only to torah shebiktav.

Tosfot (sota 21b) argues that the mitzva lishmoa is kde sheyedu lekayem
mitzva.   There is no distinction made between torah shebealpe or torah
shebiktav.  
Furthermore, (this is implicit, but not explicit in that article) this can
not be talking on a purely practical level - do this, or do not do this, as
you can't mehayev people in mitzvot and forbid them to learn how to be
mekayem them), but is talking about learning about the mitzva.

The Shulchan Aruch paskens like the Rambam.  

However, the Rama specificallly adds in his hagahot that hayevet haisha
lilmod dinim hashayachim leisha.  The Gra points out the tosfot in sota as
the source.
The rav further argued that today, because of the changing nature of
everyday life, that implied that they had to learn most of the dinim of the
torah, in order to apply them to their daily lives.

I(n other places, I have heard in the name of RYBS that he extended it in
another direction, arguing that dinim hashayachim leisha varies with the
isha and her individual needs.  A college educated women needs to have a
torah education at the same level, and therefore needs to learn torah
shebealpe at a "college" level.  However, in this article, he focuses purely
on the more standard definition of dinim hashayachim leisha)

Therefore, (my conclusion)
ikkar minhag ashkenaz according to this is to allow women to learn torah
shebealpe about the dinim that apply to them (even if historically only a
few women learned..)
Furthermore, it would seem far more pashut for women to learn gemara shabbat
about bishul (done only in LW seminaries) than for them to learn ramban on
the torah. ( common in RW seminaries)

I have heard several times (and was cited on this list) that one can teach
halachot but not sevarot, which is probably based on the Taz, but it seems
to be a fundamentally different sevara than the rama's
(why would one need a heter to learn what one may do??) 

The basis of R Weinberg's position I have heard, but (WADR)it leaves me
puzzled. Given   the metaphysical difference between men and women, what is
the basis for positing that this difference
implies an issur or even a problem with learning gemara??  Even those who
are machmir on general teaching of gemara to women, few are willing to
extend to a condemnation of the individual women who learns (see Perisha )
given the fairly impressive list of women who learned.  It seems that
opposition to feminism and reform is driving much of this, but hahadash
assur min hatorah should also apply to issurim...

lastly, the discussion pointed out what I think is an important
halachic/sociological difference between RW and LW - about the availability
and willingness to go to a posek.  The educational system posited  with no
or little torah shebealpe
is based on an assumption that all questions (on routine everyday matters in
the kitchen and shabbat) will be directed to a posek .  While I doubt that
the educational level in LW is higher, I think that the presumption (in LW)
is that one does not go to a posek only for things out of the routine.  A
certain level of education is needed to know what is considered routine.
The argument that R Mozeson brings down in the name of RYBS seems to support
this notion.
Question (say for RCS);  On a routine week, how many times (and for how
long) do you speak to a posek?  For a newly wed couple, what is a reasonable
expectation of number of times (and total time)
a week a she'ela gets asked (not on hilchot nidda, a new area for them)?

Meir Shinnar

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> How is TSBP defined?
> Rashi on Chumash?  Tz'ena u'r'ena?   Shulchan Aruch? ...

I think R' Y. Weinberg defined it pretty well:
...
> bochur!" And I'll tell you something.  I got a copy of her test on Hilchos
> Shabbos-I wouldn't give it to my kolel yungeleit!  What do you want?-Heicha
> timtzas?  That's Torah Shebeal Peh!  If they would have discussed it with me
> I would have strongly advised them not to have them learn Shemiras Shabbos
> Kehilchsa-it's Torah shebeal peh.  It includes heicha timtzas... But they
> didn't ask me, so what should I do?  Avos is not Torah shebeal peh-its musar
> and midos.  Kitzur Shulchan Aruch is not Torah shebeal peh-it's their
> halachos.  Mishna Brurah I would say is Torah Shebeal Peh, though I can hear
> someone else say it is not.  Ramban-definetely [Torah Shebeal Peh].  Rashi
> in Mishpatim-Torah shebeal peh.  If you want to know Bava Kama, learn
> through Rashi on Mishpatim and you'll have a solid basis in Mesechte Bava
> Kama, and in Bava Metziah as well.
> It's a real limud.  I think that the girls know [Rashi on Mishpatim] better
> than the boys!
...

KT
Aryeh

> How is TSBP defined? ...  Hilchos Niddah?

I can just say that my wife learned hilchot nidah from
Tovah Lichtenstein eons ago in Stern college and it
included discussions of rishonim like Rashba etc.

Eli Turkel

In message , Stein, Aryeh E. <aes@ll-f.com> writes
>Therefore, to learn Torah shebeal peh with a girl is to make [boys and
>girls] the same-and to destroy Klal Yisroel.  And all the sophisticated
>explanations are destroying Klal Yisroel!  I don't care who the gadol is,
>and how wise a man he is-he is destroying Klal Yisroel when he says that
>it's alright to teach girls Torah shebeal peh.  It's not all right.  It
>happens also to be a prohibition, one whose effects are immediate.
>

...

> And if you find that so called gedolim say
>differently, rabosay, what should I do-sheker hu!  It is absolute falsehood.
>There is no possibility of k'lal Yisroel living with schools that teach its
>daughters Torah shebe'al peh.  You cannot outsmart the Torah, it can't be
>done, because if it could be done, we don't need a Torah at all.  If the
>Torah is not correct it is not a Torah.  The Torah has always been correct,
>and it is correct in this too.  We cannot live with offering girls Torah
>shebe'al peh.


The problem of course with making absolutist statements of this nature
(sheker hu) is, as I mentioned in the discussions on RYBS, that one
counter-example and your whole premise is destroyed.  In this case, if
this were true, then Rashi's daughters would have been destroying Klal
Yisroel and been over on this issur, given that they learnt Torah
shebaal peh.  If you do not hold that they were outsmarting and
destroying Torah, then this statement cannot be true.

That of course is why those who are generally opposed to Torah Shebaal
peh learning for women more commonly take the position articulated in
the Prisha (whose mother of course was one of these yechidos) based on a
close reading of the Rambam in question that Torah Shebaal Peh is tiflus
for rov women, thus allowing those yechidos who do learn successfully
and valuably merely to proving that they are not of the rov. (From this
perspective, a place like Nishmat which is post high school only going
to appeal to yichidos anyway is far less problematic than say,
Maimonides or Pelech).

>...We sent our daughter to Gateshead and I got a letter from her. .
>"It was never my ambition to become a yeshiva
>bochur!" And I'll tell you something.  I got a copy of her test on
>Hilchos Shabbos-I wouldn't give it to my kolel yungeleit!  What do you
>want?-Heicha timtzas?  That's Torah Shebeal Peh!  If they would have
>discussed it with me I would have strongly advised them not to have
>them learn Shemiras Shabbos Kehilchsa-it's Torah shebeal peh.

If the essential philosphy of the yeshiva world today is Desslerian,
then it would seem that this is setting itself against the position of
Rav Dessler, who put tremendous effort into the seminary, and felt it
was absolutely essential to ensure that there were girls to marry the
yeshiva bochrim he was producing.

I would doubt very much that Rav Dessler, who actually saw a world in
which boys had never seen a gemorra, would ever say what is said here
below (especially when you remember that we were actually discussing
teaching preparatory Mishna in fourth grade):


>If you have to make a choice of either not teaching the boys or
>the girls or of teaching both, make the choice of teaching neither.  You'll
>be much better off in regards to building Jewish neshamas.



> We have been able to survive heresy and
>idolatry, but we cannot survive feminism.
>

and
>isn't built on the assumption that boys and girls are the same [so] you
>don't have the destructiveness...


This discussion appears to be predicated on the assumption that feminism
equals the assumption that boys and girls are the same.  Of course, this
is only one of many competing feminist ideologies (and probably one of
the less successful ones).  However, what is more interesting is how
each of you would answer the question: 

[Moderator's note: I wasn't sure about approving this post over the
next bit. Please see this "test" as intended, as an intellectual
excercise; not as a morality statement or an invitation for "us vs them"
fights. -mi]

Who is more alike (ie the same) a frum woman and: a) a frum man; or 
b) a prostitute in Thailand or India.

My guess is that the more right wing you are, the *more* likely you are
to answer a) with conviction (although I suspect that there are not that
many answering b) on this list, as mostly the concept of a universal
sisterhood that trancends ethnic origin is probably too left wing, and
dare I say it, too feminist, for at least most of Orthodoxy).

>And family requires [that there be a] different function for the woman and
>the man.  There cannot be a family in which the man and the woman are
>essentially the same.  It is difficult to have a business partnership in
>which both partners undertake the same work.  It is utterly and completely
>impossible to have a family in which mother and father do the same thing.

Interesting that a marriage is equated most easily with a business
partnership.

>It has to be that the mother undertakes a different task than the
>father does, that they are not competing, that they are not involved in
>power struggles, that they cannot be played off one against the other,
>that they can reach consensus that doesn't come from compromise. 

and

> And so compromise is correct and the
>way to go-except within the family.


My impression of much of Rav Pam's many discussions on the problem
within marriage today was the opposite to this take on marriage.  Rather
than the idea that it is assur to have compromise within a marriage, the
problem with too many marriages today is that couples today do not know
how to compromise.  And that marriage is not a business relationship. My
secretary, for example, has annual appraisals, if she suddenly starts
failing to perform her designated tasks, she is liable to be sacked and
a new secretary found who will perform such tasks.  That is the essence
of a business relationship - the question I am expected to ask myself
is, does she provide the services I need at the speed and accuracy that
I require them, and if she does not, then a poor appraisal is given,
which will, over time, if not improved, lead to her dismissal.  My
understanding of much of Rav Pam's concerns was that people were
applying this task and service oriented model to marriage, and sacking
the other partner when they failed to perform.  On the other hand, this
discussion would seem to suggest that this is the correct way to view
marriage (and presumably one would be correct to sack one's spouse if
they failed to perform the tasks allotted to them, and give their "job"
to somebody who is better able to perform such tasks).

> We all compromise,
>we have to-it is the breath of all communal existence.  But you have to
>understand something about compromise.  Compromise means that we know that
>we are doing something wrong.
>
>Everybody agrees that the compromise is wrong, only it is less wrong than
>the other alternative.  [For example, if] Reuvain says it should be A and
>Shimon says it should be B and they agree on A and a half:
>Reuvain says A and a half is not right and Shimon says A and a half is not
>right.  But Reuvain agrees A and a half is better than B, and Shimon agrees
>that A and a half is better than A.  And so we take A and a half knowing
>that it isn't really what ought to be done.

That is also an interesting understanding of the essence of compromise,
but it does not gell with either mine or, for that matter what seems to
be the gemorras. In Sanhedrin 6b - Rebbi Yeshua Ben Korcha says it is a
mitzva to compromise as it says (zacharia 8) Emes u'mishpat shalom
shoftu besha'arechem - but behold in a place in which there is mishpat
there is no shalom and in a place where there is shalom there is no
mishpat rather what is the mishpat in which there is shalom -
compromise, and by Dovid it is said  v'yehi Dovid oseh mishpat
u'tzedaka, but behold  in any place in which there is mishpat, there is
no tzedaka, and [where there is] tzedaka, there is no mishpat rather
where is the mishpat which has in it tzedaka, compromise.

That is why, the way I would rather describe the essence of compromise
as if Reuven claims he is owed A by Shimon and Shimon claims he does not
owe A, the ideal compromise is for Shimon's daughter to marry Reuven's
son and give A to the grandchildren.

Regards

Chana

I thought this might interest the chevrah. You might recall my pointing
to Lisa's web site, where she continues Brad Aaronson's work on
bringing Jewish and archeological dating for bayis rishon in sync
<http://members.tripod.com/~lifsha/history>. Brad's original article,
which he wrote for Jewish Action, is available at
<http://www.ncsy.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm>.

-mi

From: starlisa1@hotmail.com (Lisa Leil)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.moderated
Subject: Re: New in Jewish/Egyptian dates

The name Ninurta (a deity name in Assyrian), which was previously read
as Ninib, should be read Nimrud. The name is rendered by two signs in
most cases. Nin and Urta. But cuneiform signs have multiple syllabic
readings, and as more inscriptions are discovered, more possible readings
are discovered.

The sign once read "ib" was found in a list of parallels as being equal
to the two signs "ur" and "ta". But those signs also have the readings
"ru" and "ud". According to the normative way of reading cuneiform,
first choice of pronunciation goes to two signs with identical vowels
on opposite ends. So that a sign made up of "ru" and "ud" would be
read as "rud". Similarly, the sign "Nin" can equally be read as "nim".
Since Nin is the female prefix (Lady), "nim" is a better reading for the
beginning of the name of a very male and very virile hunter/warrior god.

I think that the reason Assyriologists insist on reading Ninurta
rather than Nimrud is because they don't want to have anybody screaming
"Bible! Bible!". If you look up the Mari letters in the Encyclopedia
Judaica, they discuss a tribe called the Maru Yamina, who lived in the
south of what is now Israel. The "scholar" writing notes that Maru
is east semitic for what in west semitic is "Banu", but says that it's
better not to read Banu Yamina in order to avoid possible connections
with the Bible. I admire his honesty in admitting his dishonesty.

Since Chazal identify Amraphel of Shinar (Genesis 14) with Nimrod,
I suggest that the name of the king in question was Nimrud-Amar-Apli
INinurta-Amar-Apli in the old transliteration), which means "Nimrud has
seen the heir".

Lisa

To which she got this reply, the author of which is not frum:

From: hrubin@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Date: 21 Nov 2000 15:16:45 GMT

>Since Chazal identify Amraphel of Shinar (Genesis 14) with Nimrod, I
>suggest that the name of the king in question was Nimrud-Amar-Apli
>INinurta-Amar-Apli in the old transliteration), which means "Nimrud
>has seen the heir".

How did they come to this? The name seems to be essentially Hammurabi,
who does come out historically at the estimated time of Abraham. Also,
it seems unlikely that either Hammurabi himself, or any Elamite king,
would have been involved in the war. Elam is farther east than Babylonia.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]