Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 074

Sunday, July 15 2001

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:34:26 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Silent reish??

On Wed, Jul 11, 2001 at 10:18:15PM +0300, D. and E-H. Bannett wrote:
: R' -mi wrote <<as well as the vav in "hi" (when spelled hv'). Leshitaso,
: letters without tenu'os are silent.>>

: The non-pronounced state of letters without nikkud is not only "l'shitoso"
: of R' Seth but is standard for at least a thousand years.

You're right. I meant to say: Leshitaso, this is just another example
of the rule that letters without tenu'os are silent. The vav in "hi"
is a better known example, and I was bringing it to make sure no one
questioned the rule.

I find it interesting that RDB discusses the whole haRuvein issue (which
R' David Willig was makpid on when teaching me for my bar mitzvah) without
mentioning the concept of an aleph nach, or its frequent appearance in
/qr'/ words. For an aleph not to be pronounced is much less of a chiddush
than other letters.

: The vav in "hi" in the Torah is not without a tenua', it has a chirik.

So why was I so sure it was the hei that had the chiriq? Time to go through
my chumashim to see where I was mislead...

: Koren's argument is that 'amei ha'aretz nowadays are liable to pronounce the
: shem with the letters of the k'tiv and nikkud of the k'ri, something from
: which he saved them by omitting the nikkud. He has a point. After all, didn't
: translators do exactly that, as seen in the common English pronunciation of
: shem Havaya.

Besides, the nikud isn't that of sheim havayah anyway. It's like the nikud
of the keri placed with the letters of the kesiv. It's not the normal rule
in any case.

: Me? I don't like it because, during the past thousand years, I've gotten
: used to the standard traditional way.

Vehadarta penei zakein... So, tell me, did Rashi's daughters really wear
tefillin or not? And which did Rabbeinu Tam's mother wear? <grin>


Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
(973) 916-0287               

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 1:10 +0200
Re: Rambam on Christianity

I leafed through my copy of CHESRONOT HA'SHAS on the Rambam's Peirush
hamishnayot and in a few places *nochri* was censored out completely.
Incidentally, the censored version of the Peirush Hamishnayot on Avoda Zara
1:3 deals extensively with Xtians "v'da she'zoht ha'umah hanotzrit ha'to'im
acharei yeshu afilu she'dateihem meshunot kulam ovdei avoda zara...."


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 23:28:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>
Hakhmei Ummot ha_olam

1. Mendelssohn and R. Yaakov Emden had the text "ve-lo." Mendelssohn could
not discover a sourceand therefore concluded that the Rambam was a shittat
yahid. R. Yaakov Emden tried valiantly to discover a source. One may
debate whether he succeeded, but he didn't concede the point.

2. There is both textual and logical evidence for reading "ella" in teh
Rambam. This will satisfy neither rationalists nor anti-rationalists. But
perhaps the historical Rambam was neither.

3. R. Kook's letter is in Igrot Reiyah. I think it's volume 1. It is a
brilliant analysis and I am dust beneath R. Kook's feet, but I don't think
it's pshat in Rambam.

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 19:44:39 -0400
From: "Zilberberg, David" <ZilbeDa@ffhsj.com>
RE: Arostotle's olom hab'boh: MM? and R. Kook to the rescue ( and further erratum)

From: "Michael Frankel" <mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com>
> 3. R. Kook. R. Kook's starting point is also an emendation of the usual
> published girsoh of the Mishne Torah, but unlike Cohen, this has al mah
> lismoch. First R. kook accepts the emendation which substitutes "eloh
> michakhmeihem" for "v'loa michakhmeihem". There is much to commend this
> emendation from the earliest and most authoritative kisvei yod, incuding
> yemenite versions which have always been demonstrated to exhibit the
> greatest fidelity to the original. ( I believe korn claimed that the
> majority of academic scholars, including the late R. I. Twersky, now
> preferred this girsoh.) ...

1.	I recall being at a lecture where R. Twersky was actually quoted as
preferring the "v'lo" girsa.  Anyone with definitive information regarding
R. Twersky's views?

> So, if we accept R. Kook's approach anyway, after mai'oh v'esrim, those
> of you so inclined may still look forward to discussing theories of
> universals and particulars or Active Intellects and what not with The
> Man. As i expect that sort of thing will still give me headaches, i am
> looking forward to asking Ralph Branca what could he have been thinking
> when he decided he could blow an inside fastball past [Bobby Thomson] that
> fateful day in june.

2.	Although the day was certainly fateful, it was in October, not June.

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:17:57 -0400
From: "David Glasner" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
Re: Dor Revi'i on yaqreiv mishpatan liphnei ha-Sheim

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website
www.dorrevii.org or

va-yaqreiv moshe et mishpatan li-ph'nei ha-Sheim: 

Rashi comments:
    The law on this subject escaped him. Here he received punishment
    because he had assumed "a crown" (he had set himself up as the supreme
    judge) by saying, (Deuteronomy 1:17): "And the case that is too hard
    for you ye shall bring to me, and I will hear it."

Now one may wonder what "crown" the master takes if he tells his student
that if any matter is too difficult the student may consult with him?
In saying this he has not said that he will certainly respond to him and
resolve his doubt. A further question concerns precisely what Moshe said
"and the case that is too hard for you, ye shall bring to me," because
it was so obvious that it need not have been said. It is obvious that
what is too difficult for the students should be brought to their master.

But our master explained in the name of his father (R. Avraham Glasner
1826-78) that the verse about which we are speaking was concerned with
a different issue, for there Moshe said: "You shall not be partial in
judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be
afraid of the face of any man." His meaning was: "If you ever feel within
yourselves that you are tending to one side because of respect or fear,
then you should withdraw from judgment. But bring the case before me and
I will hear it, because to me they are all equal. And neither hatred,
nor love, and neither the greatness nor the smallness of a person will
make any impression on my heart."

And this was why Moshe was punished here, for the daughters of Tz'laphhad
bribed him when they spoke to him (Numbers 27:3): "Our father died in the
wilderness; he was not in the company of those who gathered themselves
together against the L-rd in the company of Qorah." This comment is
evidently irrelevant to their case. But they wished to inform Moshe
that their father was one of his friends at the time that Qorah and his
company rose up against him. So when they said this to him, Moshe felt
a partiality in his heart to an extent that left him unable to judge
their case. And so he brought forward their case before the L-rd.

This is why the Sages said that here Moshe was punished for having taken
a "crown" by saying "and the case that is too hard for you, you shall
bring to me, and I will hear it." v'doq

David Glasner

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:15:50 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Rambam on Christianity

On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 02:11:57PM -0400, gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
:: #5 is the flipside of the first form of #2, and differ only in terminology.
:: The first shitah in #2 is that there is a Creator and the God one worships.
:: Call the Creator by His Name, and one has a middleman standing between
:: man and G-d.

: I'm not sure about this. See the Moreh Nevuchim 1:36. There, the Rambam
: talks about #5 in the same vein as in Hilchos Avodah Zarah 1:1...

At first I wasn't sure that the Morah and Hil A"Z are talking about the
same thing as here. His definition of min seems to be talking about
someone whose middleman is a demigod, which is why I said that
be flipped around just by changing the terms into #2. As in the egel
being pronounced "eileh Elohechah Yisrael". No gradual shift as in
Hil A"Z (and no reason to, if you subscribe to the idea that the egel
was supposed to be the Egyptian Apis -- they were at the end of the
slippery slope already).

After looking it over, though, no one assumes that the Rambam actually
does mean that the middleman is believed to be a secondary deity.

So I retract this bit.

:                             He distinguishes between this (#5) and the
: other 4 and says that the other 4 (including atheism) are WORSE than #5.

: The Rambam is certainly saying that #5 is avodah zarah (with all its
: halachic ramifications). Is he saying that the other 4 are as well, or
: just that they are worse than avodah zarah? If the former, then if a city
: is populated entirely with atheists does it have a din of ir hanidachas?

Well, if it's not A"Z, you'd have to find something worse than A"Z for
them to be. I don't think there is a further point for violating chovos
halvavos than A"Z.

:: Looking at the Yad, Hil Teshuvah 3:6-8 (keminyan she'anu monim kan), it would
:: seem that he defines a min as someone who doesn't believe in a single G-d;

: Yes, but is a min an oved avodah zarah?

Li nir'eh, therefore, yes.

: By "all under the same issur" are you saying that all 5 are considered
: avodah zarah?

That was my intent.

:: As already pointed out, it depends on the Christian, anyway.
: That is an obvious point that you never see mentioned in the literature.

OTOH, perhaps the published piskei halachah are about how to deal with
stam a Christian. What chazakah to assume when you don't know the person.


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

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 09:07:07 +0300
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>

RGB wrote>In connection with a suggestion made here last week, Tosfos
> says on today's Daf Yomi that (migu that someone could have) written a
> get immediately after kiddushin, despite it being a get yashan, the get
> would be good bedi'avad.

Just to clarify, that Tos Yeshanim is discussing GET YASHAN.  GET YASHAN is
a get in the hands of the husband NOT YET delivered to the wife.  When a
child is conceived after the date of the NOT YET delivered get, later it
will look like he was born out-of-wedlock.

It is not a chiddush here that GET YASHAN is kosher bdieved.  In fact, GET
YASHAN is a Mishna in the end of Gittin.

Therefore, use of this Tos to agunos of today seems COMPLETELY irrelevant.

Shlomo Goldstein

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 13:25:21 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Re: Mother Getting to name the firstborn

In a message dated 7/10/01 1:53:41pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> As some of our esteemed members would put it, Bereishis 38:3-4 also
> implies the opposite practice.

See the Ramban there. there is a letter from the L. Rebbe on this topic, 
there is also discussion on this issue in the Sefer "Ziv Hasheimos".  Anyone 
interested in copies of the above, give a fax # off line

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[Actually, if you could fax it to (413) 403-9905, it'll reach my email
box. Then we can get a form distributable by email. I've never tried it,
but we could use a standard mechanism for this. -mi]

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 16:18:58 -0500
From: yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU
hester panim

I have been asked for sources (from Talmud through modern mahshavah [e.g.
REED, R Hutner etc]) for the concept, even definition, of "hester panim"
and was hoping chevra here could help. The more citations, the better
but please give an exact reference rather than "somewhere in..."

Many thanks in advance,

Be-tsipiyah li-teshu`ah me-et Mena.hem Tsiyon u-Voneh Yerushalayim
le-.homot va-.hel shel `ir she-.hubrah lah ya.hdav le-kol bet Yisra'el,

Yisrael Dubitsky

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 17:52:31 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: hester panim

On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 04:18:58PM -0500, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU wrote:
:                                                       ... "hester panim"
: and was hoping chevra here could help. The more citations, the better
: but please give an exact reference rather than "somewhere in..."

You can start with the gemara's "Esther min haTorah minyanin"...


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 19:54:39 -0700
From: "Michael Frankel" <mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com>
Chiriq; the long and short of it, slightly revised.

I previously wrote: <...Rather, while the pronunciation of the so called
long and short chiriq is indeed the same, that realization is davkoh as
an ee. Thus ashkenazim would pronounce the short chiriq inthe following
pee'el words as "deeber, qeedem, sheeber,...etc. rather than -- as
suggested by r seth's remarks -- "di'ber, shih'ber,...". Butthe story does
not end there. in standard practice today the chiriq is indeed pronounced
"ih" per R. Seth's prescription in one specific situation--and that is
when it points a letter in a closed syllable with explicit sh'voh noch..>

Oops. No sooner do i get a good k'lol going than my first example was
mistaken. I had asserted that the chiriq assumed a sh'voh noh-like
"ih" sound only in closed syllables with explicit sh'voh noch and
provided some examples like MISHkon which, as an observational factoid,
few ashkenazim would pronounce as MEEshkon as they might such words as
DEEber, MEEtoch,...Would that I had stopped there, however the other
example I provided was PINchos.

Unfortunately as I started to prepare the shabbos leining this evening
I was painfully reminded that pinchos is actually spelled with a long
chiriq and thus sh'voh noh. So according to my assertion that should
actually be articulated PEEn'chos. But i believe most ashkenazim would
indeed articulate pinchos as originally stated. I am thus considering
modifying my k'lol, and restricting the domain of my disagreement with
R. Seth's claim of a singular realization of the chiriq, to the instance
of short chiriqs in syllables closed by explicit dogeish chozoq where
it is realized as EE as in the examples above and contra R. Seth,
with chiriqs followed by any flavor of sh'voh retracting to an "ih"
realization per R. seth. I am not actually happy with this just yet, but
the alternative is PEEn'chos which does sound like a hypercorrection. The
one thing that I am however happy about is the feeling that hardly
anybody will still be reading this posting by this point to fully grasp
the extent of my backing, filling, bobbing and weaving here. Those,
hopefully few of you, still reading this might be advised to get a life.

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
mechyfrankel@zdnetonebox.com    H: (301) 593-3949

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:40:09 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Mother Getting to name the firstborn

On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 01:25:21PM -0400, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:                       there is a letter from the L. Rebbe on this topic, 
: there is also discussion on this issue in the Sefer "Ziv Hasheimos".  Anyone 
: interested in copies of the above...

... can find it at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/zivHasheimos.pdf>.

I figured out how to convert a fax to (413) 403-9905 into a PDF file.
This will allow us to put other texts into the archive to share with
the chevrah.


Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
(973) 916-0287                               - R' Binyamin Hecht

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:59:57 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Mother Getting to name the firstborn

> When I was in in RYBS shiur heonce asked what was unusual about
> his name. He then explained that he is named after his paternal
> greatgrandfather although his mother had the choice of names.
> However, R. Chaim complained that no one had been named yet after
> his father. R. Chaim's custom was never to be sandek. However,
> he promised his daughter-in-law he would be sandek if she would
> agree to name the child after RYBS I (Beis Halevi).

actually that story was the source of my question as i remembered the
ramban on bksiz.

fwiw Rebitzin Meiselman(sister of R'YBS) reports that in the end R. chaim
wasn't the sandek, her father was.


Go to top.

Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001 12:11:21 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Re: Mother Getting to name the firstborn

In a message dated Fri, 13 Jul 2001 1:26:52am EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
>> his father. R. Chaim's custom was never to be sandek. However,
>> he promised his daughter-in-law he would be sandek if she would
>> agree to name the child after RYBS I (Beis Halevi).
> fwiw Rebitzin Meiselman(sister of R'YBS) reports that in the end R. chaim
> wasn't the sandek, her father was.

oops-I wrote too quickly-it was R' Chaim's daughter in law"s(Rebbitzin
Pesha- R' YBS mother)father=R' Feinstein who was sandek according to
his granddaughter


Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >