Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 39

Tue, 10 Mar 2015

• 1. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Marty Bluke)
• 2. Re: Origins and Nature of Derashos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (elazar teitz)
• 4. Re: Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah) (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Question on the Megilla (elazar teitz)
• 8. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Ayin Tachas Ayin (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Ayin Tachas Ayin (Micha Berger)
• 12. Archaeology and the Exodus (Ari Z. Zivotofsky)
• 13. Re: Archaeology and the Exodus (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Marty Bluke)

On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The question of whether Ashuris was in use for sacred writing but not used
> by the masses isn't between whether R' Yosi literally vs non-literally,
> but whether they hold like R' Yosi or the majority of the amoraim who
> give the third opinion.

But it is, if you understand R' Yosi literally then Ashuris was NEVER used
for anything until the time of Ezra.

> In any case the pesaq *may* be on the qedushah of a seifer Torah written in
> Kesav Ivri. With the presumption that R' Yosi would treat it identically
> to one written in Ashuris, and the other opinions not. Just hunting "out
> loud" for a nafqa mina lemaaseh.

I don't know if that assumption is correct. Once Ashuris became the Ksav
then it is possible that Sefarim in Ksav Ivri became Pasul. R' Kasher in
the Miluim to Parshas Ki Tisa discusses this
(<http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51491&;st=&pgnum=153>) and quotes
from R' Chaim Kanievsky that even according to R' Yosi once the ksav
changed to Ashuris anything written in Ksav Ivri became pasul. R' Kasher
himself disagrees.

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 12:57:38PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: > The question of whether Ashuris was in use for sacred writing but not used
: > by the masses isn't between whether R' Yosi literally vs non-literally,
: > but whether they hold like R' Yosi or the majority of the amoraim who
: > give the third opinion.

: But it is, if you understand R' Yosi literally then Ashuris was NEVER used
: for anything until the time of Ezra.

Oh, agreed. Sorry I wasn't clear: You haven't given a reason for reading
R' Yosi non-literally. The position you attribute to non-literal R'
Yosi is a different shitah in the gemara. And so I suggested that's a
more natural way of viewing that machloqes.

:> In any case the pesaq *may* be on the qedushah of a seifer Torah written in
:> Kesav Ivri. With the presumption that R' Yosi would treat it identically
:> to one written in Ashuris, and the other opinions not. Just hunting "out
:> loud" for a nafqa mina lemaaseh.

: I don't know if that assumption is correct. Once Ashuris became the Ksav
: then it is possible that Sefarim in Ksav Ivri became Pasul...

Me neither. Thus my "*may*". I have also argued here that it's possible
that even if we exactly determined what an olive size was in Chazal's
day, it doesn't demand that we hold the same volume is sufficient to be
yotzei matzah today.

FWIW, I don't understand RCK's position... A Sefer written in classical
Greek is kosher, but not one written in Kesav Ivri?

--



To explain the math mashal:

A square has local symmtery. You can turn it 90 deg, leave the rest of
the world unchanged, and the total picture is the same as when you began.

Magnets have global symmetry. If you just turn one 180 deg around,
and leave the rest of the same, the world is different -- the magnet
repells others where it used to attract, and v.v. However, if you flip
every magnet's north and south polls around, the total magnetism is
unchanged. (Once you add electric charge, it's CPT symmetry that's
globally preserved, but that's a topic for the curious and Google,
and beyond my mashal.)

So I similarly argued that there are global changes to the sefer Torah
that would preserve more of its qedushah than if you applied a smaller
change locally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

RMicha Berger wrote:

>The Mesorah, as in Ben Asher (and Ben Naftali) and the notes on the side of
a Miqra'os Gedolos are Qaraite, not from "*our* Baalei Mesorah".<

     However, this is far from clear.  The idea that BA was a Karaite was
first propounded in the mid-nineteenth century, and has been met with less
than resounding agreement from modern-day scholars.  The Hebrew-language
Wikipedia entry on BA presents the arguments pro and con, and the con
evidence is more direct (and plentiful) than the pro.  An example of one of
the arguments that he was is the colophon of the Keter, which apparently
has Karaite language.  However, it has been established that it was written
after BA"s death, when the Keter was purchased by a Karaite on behalf of
their Yerushalayim contingent, and not by BA himself.

     Another argument is that Rav Saadia Gaon wrote vituperatively to and
about a Karaite by the name of Ben Asher.  However, there is no first name
mentioned by RSG, and there was at least one contemporary Karaite by the
name of Ben Asher who was not the Masorete.

     Further, there is no evidence whatever of the existence of a Karaite
presence in T'verya.

     As for Ben Naftali, his Wikipedia entry makes no mention of an opinion
that he was a Karaite.

     I have not been able to deterrmine who proposed that BA was a Karaite,
but the theory arose at a time when not all scholars were objective and
unprejudiced in such questions, and the claim may well have been advanced
by a maskil with an agenda.  Certainly, being dan l'chaf z'chus requires
that we give BA the benefit of the doubt, and not accept a negative opinion
about him as an established fact.

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150309/2aed6e4c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:26:58PM -0400, elazar teitz via Avodah wrote:
:      As for Ben Naftali, his Wikipedia entry makes no mention of an opinion
: that he was a Karaite.
:      I have not been able to deterrmine who proposed that BA was a Karaite,
...

So let me back off that claim, while still pushing my basic thesis.

BA and BN are accepted not for their greatness in the chain of rabbinics,
but because of their technical expertise at text.

My point was to object to the idea that they establish an objective
standard by which Ashkenazi minhag can be deemed objectively wrong.

And (as you know first-hand) I am one of those who try reverting
a number of the simplifications in havarah that are common among
Ashkenazim. However, I am also loathe to simply assume minhag Yisrael
is not kedin. I would need more than Tiverian say-so.

I also noted along the way that Rashi's set of vowel names better fit the
set of symbols used in Bavel to denote vowels than the Tiverian system.
I have no idea what Prof Agus or Ta-Shma would do with the notion
that when it comes to havarah, Ashk is closer to Bavel than Sepharadim
are. (Those being the two RRW most often cited behind the thesis that
Ashkenaz contiains a richer mix of refugees from EY than Seph does;
Seph being more Bavli in origins.) But there is reason to at least
consider the possibility.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org        a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org   by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Oprah Winfrey

On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 2:17pm EDT, RnTK wrote:
: This goes back to a very fundamental  question, what did Moshe get at Har
: Sinai. R' Micha Berger wrote the  following a while back:

:> RM Halbertal proposes that there  are three basic positions on
:> plurality in  halakhah:
...
:> 2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
:> given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds  reaching
:> different  conclusions. ...

: I don't  know exactly what the Rambam said but I'm sure he didn't say  the 
: chachamim can make up the Torah as they see fit, new in every  generation.

Why not read RMH's essay?
<http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf>
In short, the Rambam understand TSBP to be primarily rules of inference.
Including derashah. The actual inferences are made by Chazal. And all
machloqes is when two different rabbanim use the inference rules to reach
different conclusions.

So no, they can't make up Torah as they see fit, but yes, there is new
Torah in every generation.

: Certain kinds of halacha were forgotten and had to be reconstructed...

The Rambam explicitly attacks this idea (tr. RMH):
    But the opinion of one who thought that also the laws wherein there is
    disagreement are received from Moses, and that disagreement took place
    due to an error in receiving the tradition or due to frightfulness,
    i.e., that one [disputant] is correct in his tradition and the second
    errs in his tradition, or he forgot or he did not hear fr om his
    teacher all that he should have; and he [who holds this opinion]
    offers as evidence for this what they said, "When the disciples
    [of Shammai and Hillel who had insufficiently studied, increased
    in number, disputes multiplied in Israel and the Torah became as
    two Torot". Behold this, as God knows, is a despicable and very
    strange position, and it is an incorrect matter and not compatible
    to principles. And he [who holds this position] suspects people from
    whom we received the Torah and this is falsehood.".

Nor is it the majority view among rishonim, which is the position RHM
nicknamed "constitutive". Quoting RHM:
    Although less developed, the third model can be traced to the writings
    of Nachmanides and his students, the fourteenth century atalonian
    scholars Yom Tov Ishbili (Ritba) and Nissim Gerondi (Ran)... [T]he
    explanation Nachmanides provides for obeying every legal ruling ma
    e by the court even if it says "of the right that is left and of the
    left that is right": "...Scripture, therefore, defined the law that
    we are to obey the Great Court...For it was subject to their judgment
    that He gave them the Torah, even if it appears to you to exchange
    right for left". This explanation does not recognize an a-priori
    right and left; rather, the court itself defines what is right and
    what is left. In other words, the court cannot be mistaken about
    the halakhah, because it has the privilege granted by the author,
    to constitute the very meaning of the text....

IOW, the Rambam says that there is a Divine Truth implied in new cases,
and because the implication system is something other than logic, in the
hanfs of different people they will reach different conclusions. The
Ramban, Ran, Ritva and I have added Rashi believe that there are multiple
right answers -- eilu va'eilu in a very literal if non-intuitive way.
The rules are legal in nature, and the rabbinate is empowered tu use them
to make one truth or the other law.

: Something as basic and straightforward as ayin tachas ayin -- monetary  
: recompense for intentional injury --  is just not the kind of law that  would 
: be forgotten.  It's also not the kind of halacha that could be  changed 
: arbitrarily by the chachamim at will...

I think the debate here is more obstruse than that. First, Zev is claiming
payment peshat in the word "tachas". I wish it was, as that makes more
sense to me too, but it is called a derashah. As in the derashah telling
us the halakhah, and peshat giving us a mussar shmuess about how severe
injuring another is. So, my instinct is wrong.

Then, once you say it is a derashah, how early was the derashah made?

Your assumption that every law based on derashah must be based back
miSinai doesn't fit the medrash the Malbim in Rus pointed us to on the
age of "'Moavi' -- velo Mo'avis".

And it's supported by a model of machloqes that is rare; RHM only finds
it explicitly in Seifer haQabbalah (R' Avraham ibn Daud, Raavad I [not
"the" Raavad found in the standard Yad], 12th cent CT.).

...
: BTW many years ago I heard a lecture from a scholar who said your #3 above  
: -- "It's not that Chazal remembered or reconstituted and taught the  
: halacha objectively, it's that whatever they said ipso facto  /became/ the 
: halacha, and if they had said something different, then  /that/ would have been the 
: halacha" -- and when I repeated it to a certain  talmid chacham, he said 
: about the scholar, "He's an apikores."

Well, now you know you're mistaken. He is actually following rov rishonim.

I suggest you [re?] read RZLampel's The Dynamics of Dispute.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:11:21PM -0500, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: But still another principle stated by the Rambam rounds out his thesis:
: In the introduction to his Mishna commentary, the Rambam states that from the
: time of Yehoshua to the Anshay Knesses HaGedola, every Beis Din maintained the
: decisions of the previous ones. In other words, although they had the /right/
: described in Mamrim 2:1 to overturn previous decisions, they in fact never did
: so...

My usual counter-example, after Moavi velo Moavis:
According to the gemara (Zevachim 61b, bot), AKhG built the mizbeiach
in bayis sheini so that the shisin would be within and running to
the ground under the mizbeiach. This was based on the derashah of
"mizbach adamah".

This is a derashah made by AKhG that would pasl the nesachim done in
bayis rishon!

A new derashah that overturned the wisest man's and his beis din's pesaq!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

>According to Rav Yaakov Meidan, Achashverosh had become a puppet king, and
Haman was the real regent, though always on his toes, knowing that the king
could regain power. Haman can waltz in because Achashverosh is in fact
subservient to him. Not even when Esther twice tries to arouse his jalousy
by inviting another man to her private lechaim, does Achashverosh man up.
Once she points her finger and says Haman hara' hazeh, Achashverosh still
doesn't act and instead leaves the scene, clueless. Only once Haman
providentially falls on Esther's bed does Achashverosh man up.<

     This is an idea which has no backing whatever from the p'sukim.  Haman
did not "providentially fall on Esther's bed," and it was not finding him
in that position that led Achashveirosh to "man up."  Quite the contrary:
the only reason he was on the bed to begin with was because he realized
that the jig was up.   The pasuk states explicitly that he fell on the bed
 "l'vakeish al nafsho . . . ki ra'a ki chal'sa alav hara'a mei'eis
hamelech."

EMT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150309/6439ef64/attachment-0001.htm>

On 03/09/2015 05:23 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> : Something as basic and straightforward as ayin tachas ayin -- monetary
> : recompense for intentional injury --  is just not the kind of law that  would
> : be forgotten.  It's also not the kind of halacha that could be  changed
> : arbitrarily by the chachamim at will...
>
> I think the debate here is more obstruse than that. First, Zev is claiming
> payment peshat in the word "tachas". I wish it was, as that makes more
> sense to me too, but it is called a derashah. As in the derashah telling
> us the halakhah, and peshat giving us a mussar shmuess about how severe
> injuring another is. So, my instinct is wrong.

Again, LOOK IN RASHI.   Rashi shows how it is *impossible* to understand "tachas"
any other way than payment.   If you think he is wrong, then I challenge you to
go through the exercise of reading the paragraph with your translation of the
word, and try to make sense of it.  I can only conclude that those who say it
means removing the item have never tried to read the whole paragraph.  It may
never have occurred to them to do so.  But when you try it, it becomes obvious
that Rashi is right, it simply can't be done.

-- 
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 Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 07:56:17PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Again, LOOK IN RASHI. Rashi shows how it is *impossible* to understand "tachas"
: any other way than payment.  If you think he is wrong...

No, I think you can't read the sources on this objectively. You're still
ignoring half of what was raised to dispute you.

Rashi says "pairshu rabboseinu". Nothing about it being the only possible
understanding.

The sugya on BQ 84a egins with devei R' Yishmael hunting for a qera
yeseira that could be available for derashos. And then they proceed
with such derashos. Then they, Devei R' Chiya, yinasein", try "kaasher
yitzein mum be'adam Devei R' Tana devei Chezqiyahu, all provide derashos.
And each discussing what the qera yesiera is.

A discussion of "qera yeseira darshei" is about derashos. The word is
right there.

See also the Sifra, who also darshens this pasuq by comparison to Bamidbar
35:32, "'velo siqechu kofer lenefesh rotzeiach' -- lerotzeiach ein ata
noteil kofeir, notein atah le'eivarim kofir.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Now it looks like it's my turn to have misquoted something.  I went looking
for the explanation that I remember clearly seeing in Rashi... and I can't
find it.  So unless it's in some other place in Rashi, I must have seen it
somewhere else and misattributed it to Rashi.   It is still an absolute proof
that it is impossible to translate "tachas" as one would think at first, but
since the copy of Rashi in which it appears seems to exist only in my head,
I can hardly blame others for not having seen it, and I will have to lay it
out here for my readers who must have been scratching their heads and
wondering what I was ranting about.

The explanation is simply that any attempt to read Vayikra 24:17-21 with
"tachas" meaning anything but "money" ends up contradicting itself.  It
can't be done.   Go ahead and try it.  Start at the beginning of pasuk 17,
and keep going to the end of pasuk 21, and each time "tachas" appears try
translating it in its allegedly "literal" sense.  Never mind whether it
appears draconian; assume the Torah is as cruel and ruthless as you like,
and it *still* doesn't make any sense.  But when you translate "tachas"
as payment, and apply that to the whole paragraph, it all makes perfect
sense.

Since this doesn't appear to be in Rashi, it must be somewhere else, and
I can't remember where, but "kabel es ha'emes mimi she'amrah".  Even if
I dreamed it up myself, it simply makes sense; see if it doesn't.  And
if you can come up with a sensible reading of the paragraph that takes
"tachas" to mean plucking out eyes, by all means lay it out and explain
how it makes sense.


-- 
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 Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 10:03:25PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Now it looks like it's my turn to have misquoted something.  I went looking
: for the explanation that I remember clearly seeing in Rashi... and I can't
: find it...

Regardless, the gemara explicitly calls it a derashah, and even applies
the rule of finding a mufneh mitzad echad to utilize for the derashah.

And, as already noted as well, the notion that ayin tachas ayin is
phrased so that halakhah is from the derashah but the mussar is from
the peshat is a point made by the Ibn Ezra and many others.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

received from a friend of mine and I think it will interest others here:

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


essay titled, ?Was there an Exodus?? In it, I trace the arguments for 
and against the historicity of the Exodus and how the scholarly debate 
is deeply colored by political ideology. In the main part of the essay I 
reveal how Sefer Shemot appropriates royal Egyptian propaganda in its 
crafting of the story of yestziat mitzrayim. The Torah?s employ of this 
material is truly vast and offers a range of new insights into the 
meaning of the story of keriyat Yam Suf and the design of the Mishkan.
http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus/

Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman
Dept. of Bible
Bar-Ilan University

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 10:59:04AM +0200, R Ari Z. Zivotofsky forwarded
from Rabbi Dr. Joshua Berman:
: In the lead essay in this month's issue of Mosaic Magazine, I have
: an essay titled, "Was there an Exodus?" In it, I trace the arguments
: for and against the historicity of the Exodus and how the scholarly
: debate is deeply colored by political ideology...

<http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/03/was-there-an-exodus>
The core thesis was interesting but I was bothered by something else.

Along the way R/D JB writes:
    In biblical Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the word for
    thousand -- eleph -- can also mean "clan," or "troop," and it is
    clear from individual occurrences of the word that such groups do
    not comprise anywhere near a thousand individuals...

I have encountered this idea before, until now only from the pens of
Bible Critics. Because some of R/D JB's arguments for this idea are
internal to understanding the Torah, rather than staying with the usual
arguments based on archeology, I included his treatment of the idea
in full at the bottom of this post. (And because I know not all of you
would bother chasing the link, and would form opinions on the topic
of this thread without reading the argument I'm addressing in full
if I didn't.)

However, I do not see how this retranslation of "elef" fits peshat in
the pasuq.

If we look at the counts in Bamidbar 1:20-43, the hundreds (and Gad's
650) add up to 5,550, and the alafim add up to 598,000. It's only when
you let those 5,000 carry from the mei'ot to the elef column that you
get the pasuq's (v. 46) grand total of 603,550.

Similarly, in parashas Pinechas (26:2-50). The hundred and tens add
up to 5,750. The alafim come to 596,000. The grand total (v. 51) is
601,730. Again, it works and only works if you carry the 5 from mei'os
to alafim.

In short, alafim is being used as thousands in the straight arithmetic
of the pasuq.

Some writers (and I do NOT mean to include R/D JB) persist in saying that
elef didn't originally mean thousand here, and the totals were inserted
or "fixed" by a later author. But I do not know of a resolution that is
consistent with Torah miSinai.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

    While on the topic of archaeological evidence, let me also dispose
    of the issue of a "mass" exodus of two million Israelites. This,
    although it looms large in the case against the historicity of the
    exodus, is something of a red herring, and warrants a brief discussion
    of its own. In fact, despite the Bible's apparent declaration that
    Israelite men numbered 600,000 when they left Egypt, a wealth of
    material in the Torah points to a number dramatically and perhaps
    even exponentially lower.

    For one thing, the book of Exodus (23:29-30) claims that the
    Israelites were so few in number as to be incapable of populating the
    land they were destined to enter; similarly, in referring to them as
    the smallest nation on the face of the earth, the book of Deuteronomy
    (7:7) says they were badly outnumbered by the inhabitants of the
    land. The book of Numbers (3:43) records the number of first-born
    Israelite males of all ages as 22,273; to have so few first-born
    males in a population totaling in excess of two million would have
    required a fertility rate of many dozens of children per woman --
    a phenomenon unmentioned by the Torah and not evidenced in any family
    lineages from that period in other ancient Near Eastern sources.

    Besides, an encampment of two million -- equivalent to the population
    of Houston, Texas -- would have taken days to traverse. Yet the
    Torah (Exodus 33:6-11) does not remark upon that, either, instead
    describing Israelites routinely exiting and returning to the camp
    with ease. Nor does it register the bedlam and gridlock that would
    have been created by the system of centralized sacrifices mandated
    in the book of Leviticus. In Exodus 15:27, moreover, the Israelites
    are reported camping at a particular desert oasis that boasted 70
    date palms -- which, for a population of two million, would have to
    have fed and sheltered 30,000 people per tree!

    Many details of the exodus story do appear to reflect the realities
    of ancient Egypt. What's more, they're details that a scribe living
    centuries later and inventing the story afresh would have been
    unlikely to know. Why is the figure of 600,000 fighting-age males
    so wildly out of sync with so many other elements in the Torah's
    desert account? Here we encounter a peculiarity characteristic of
    the Bible as a whole. If, by and large, its stated proportions and
    dimensions -- like those given for the Tabernacle in the desert,
    or for Solomon's Temple -- are realistic enough, the exceptions
    occur almost universally in one sphere. This is the military, where
    we find numbers reaching truly "biblical" magnitudes.

    In biblical Hebrew, as in other Semitic languages, the word for
    thousand -- eleph -- can also mean "clan," or "troop," and it is
    clear from individual occurrences of the word that such groups do
    not comprise anywhere near a thousand individuals. In the military
    context, the term may simply function as a hyperbolic figure of
    speech -- as in "Saul has killed his thousands, but David his tens of
    thousands" (1 Samuel 18:8) -- or serve some typological or symbolic
    purpose, as do the numerals 7, 12, 40, and so on. In isolation,
    a census list totaling some 600,000 men obviously refers to a
    certain sum of individuals; against the wealth of other data I've
    adduced here, it becomes difficult to say what that sum is. (For an
    overview, see New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology
    and Exegesis vol. I, pp. 416-417, and Jerry Waite, "The Census of
    Israelite Men after Their Exodus from Egypt," Vetus Testamentum, 60
    [2010], pp. 487-491.)

    It is therefore far less surprising than it may seem that the
    archaeological record is lacking evidence of the Israelite encampment
    and influx into the land. The population, after all, may not have
    been terribly great.

R"n Katz wrote:
"I don't  know exactly what the Rambam said but I'm sure he didn't say  the
chachamim can make up the Torah as they see fit, new in every  generation."

Of course not, what the Rambam said is that the Chachamim in every
generation have the power to darshen pesukim differently then their
predecessors and change the halacha. That doesn't mean it happened
frequently, in fact it was very very rare.

"BTW many years ago I heard a lecture from a scholar who said your #3 above

-- "It's not that Chazal remembered or reconstituted and taught the
halacha objectively, it's that whatever they said ipso facto  /became/ the
halacha, and if they had said something different, then  /that/ would have
been the
halacha" -- and when I repeated it to a certain  talmid chacham, he said
about the scholar, "He's an apikores."

Well since if I am not mistaken that is the Ritva's understanding of eilu
v'eilu he is calling the Ritva an apikores.

When will people learn that there are many different shitos on most issues
and just because a certain shita became accepted doesn't make every other
shita wrong or apikursus.

Unless of course you say they they could say it but we can't.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150310/3ac3d977/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)