Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 3

Mon, 15 Jan 2007

• 1. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Micha Berger)
• 2. Talmud Torah keneged kulam (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Lifnei Iveir (Nachman Levine)
• 4. Re: Clarification on Hareidi El-Al (Michael Kopinsky)
• 5. Re: Talmud Torah keneged kulam (Michael Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Talmud Torah keneged kulam (Michael Kopinsky)
• 7. Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (SBA)
• 8. Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Gershon Dubin)
• 9. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Danny Schoemann)
• 10. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (SBA)
• 12. Re: Changing Havarah (SBA)
• 13. Moshe Rabbenu's stuttering (Kelmar, Michael J.)
• 14. Re: Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering (Zev Sero)

On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 03:19:16PM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: My 8 year old wanted to know why Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering wasn't
: healed at the burning bush.

The Maharsha defines "aral sefasayim" more literally, as a lip injury.
And thus Moshe Rabbeinu couldn't naturally say the letters buma"f
(including vav).

See <http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/kornfeld/archives/shemos.htm>,
R' Mordecai Kornfeld cites R' Yitzchaq Vilozhiner:
> Yet, the Midrash (Shmot Rabba 3:20) tells us, when Moshe relayed to others
> the words of Hashem his speech was miraculously perfect and unslurred;
> "the Shechinah (divine spirit) spoke from Moshe's throat" during his
> prophecies (see Zohar Pinchas p. 232, Shmot 19:19 with Rashi). The
> clear pronunciation of the words "Pakod Pakadti" was the surest sign
> that Moshe was truly G-d-sent!

> When Moshe wondered to Hashem why he wasn't cured of his slurred speech
> when he was charged with bringing His word to the people (a question
> dealt with by Ramban 4:10; Drashot Haran, Drush 3), Hashem replied to
> him, "Who gave a person a mouth and who can make a person dumb or deaf,
> able to see or blind? Is it not I, Hashem?" (Shmot 4:11). Moshe's defect
> served a very important purpose. Without it, he could not have proven
> through the clear enunciation of the words "Pakod Pakadti" that he was
> indeed the long-awaited redeemer. (Peh Kakosh, Shmot 4:11)

Moshe's speech impediment existed for the purpose of people knowing
outright the supernatural nature of his nevu'ah.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:10:41AM +1100, SBA wrote to Areivim:
: As we say every morning...'vetalmud Torah keneged kulom..."

I do not think it's possible to be literal, beli guzmah. After all,
if talmud Torah keneged kulam, and tzitzis is keneged kulam (as the
Bavli puts it "veTaRYa"G mitzvos hateluyim bah"), and yishuv
EY is keneged kulam, at least two of those three are equal to themselves
plus another 611 mitzvos.

See also RSPooter's post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n076.shtml#12>. (My reply to it
is missable.)

: Girls don't have such a chiyuv.

Vetalmud Torah keneged kulam is because of the chiyuv of talmud Torah or
because one can't do the other 612 without it? In which case, it would
be true for women too.

The reason to suggest this meaning is that it has parallels in tzitzis
and yishuv EY.

Without "velo sasuru", there is no ability to keep mitzvos.

The Ramban and Radaq both suggest that shemiras hamitzvos in chu"l is
just practice. Although I doubt they too meant that in absolute rather
than relative terms -- ie I'm assuming guzmah here too -- still the
notion is there that the other 612 hinge on yishuv EY.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

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

It would appear that between the figurative/literal interpretations of
?Lifnei Iver? is a simple counterfactual nafka mina between the ?Modern?
(=19th century) approach to Lifnei Iveir of the Minchas Chinuch?s Tzarich
Iyun, R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow to Sefer Hamitzvos LeRaSaG 55, Malbim al
asar, etc., etc., 

and the post-modern definition of the Meshech Chochmah (postmodern
all-inclusuve Lav SheBiChlalos):
 
The Nafak Mina: 

If I try to influence you (or facilitate) (or trick you) into (Chas
VeShalom) 
actually putting a stumbling block in front of a real blind person 
 
?does it have this Shem Isur and would I have transgressed this Lav ?at
ALL?
 
[The post-modern definition may work: while the Rambam, Sefer HaMitzvos
299 says ?Ikar Pshatei DeKra? is influencing (as opposed to
facilitating), the Chazon Ish (Yoreh Deiah 62:7) says ?Pshatei DeKra? is
= tripping somebody!!] (See also Zohar III 85a that it has a dual
two-tiered meaning)

There is much to consider here in meaning.
Nachman Levine
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070114/6bebce69/attachment.htm 

On 1/12/07, David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Incidentally I've been trying to understand someone's hava amina that people
> buried in New Jersey are not metamei beohel.  The best I can come up with is
> that dying in New Jersey is such a horrible onesh that it's mechaper, and
> the poster held that tzaddikim einam metamim.

Is dying in NJ any worse an onesh than living in NJ?

On 1/14/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:10:41AM +1100, SBA wrote to Areivim:
> : As we say every morning...'vetalmud Torah keneged kulom..."
>
> I do not think it's possible to be literal, beli guzmah. After all,
> if talmud Torah keneged kulam, and tzitzis is keneged kulam (as the
> Bavli puts it "veTaRYa"G mitzvos hateluyim bah"), and yishuv
> EY is keneged kulam, at least two of those three are equal to themselves
> plus another 611 mitzvos.
>
> See also RSPotter's post at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n076.shtml#12>. (My reply to it
> is missable.)

My understanding of TTKK is as follows:
(Admittedly, this is clearly k'negged the Rambam in TT and the Yerushalmi,
but I'm allowed to think, aren't I?)

The things listed in that Mishna in Peah are all things that we would call
"rewarding" activities, i.e. that you get a significant reward in Olam
Hazeh.  Doing service for others in its different forms, having a deep
connection with God, and having a daily schedule structured around shul/BM
are all things that make one much happier in this world.  But nothing
gives more meaning, and is more "rewarding" than TT, which lets you see
meaning in every subtlety and trivialty in life.  So the chiddush of the
things in this mishna is not that you get schar in Olam Haba - all mitzvos
give you that - but that you get schar in Olam Hazeh.

On 1/14/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2007 at 01:10:41AM +1100, SBA wrote to Areivim:
> : As we say every morning...'vetalmud Torah keneged kulom..."
>
> I do not think it's possible to be literal, beli guzmah. After all,
> if talmud Torah keneged kulam, and tzitzis is keneged kulam (as the
> Bavli puts it "veTaRYa"G mitzvos hateluyim bah"), and yishuv
> EY is keneged kulam, at least two of those three are equal to themselves
> plus another 611 mitzvos.
>
> See also RSPotter's post at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol16/v16n076.shtml#12>. (My reply to it
> is missable.)

My understanding of TTKK is as follows:
(Admittedly, this is clearly k'negged the Rambam in TT and the Yerushalmi,
but I'm allowed to think, aren't I?)

The things listed in that Mishna in Peah are all things that we would call
"rewarding" activities, i.e. that you get a significant reward in Olam
Hazeh.  Doing service for others in its different forms, having a deep
connection with God, and having a daily schedule structured around shul/BM
are all things that make one much happier in this world.  But nothing
gives more meaning, and is more "rewarding" than TT, which lets you see
meaning in every subtlety and trivialty in life.  So the chiddush of the
things in this mishna is not that you get schar in Olam Haba - all mitzvos
give you that - but that you get schar in Olam Hazeh.

From: "Danny Schoemann" <>
My 8 year old wanted to know why Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering wasn't
healed at the burning bush.
>>

Why should the burning bush cure him?

SBA

<<rom: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
 
<<She then claimed that Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering was healed at Matan
Torah, since all ailments were then cured. Do we have a reliable
record to prove/disprove that Moshe Rabeinu was included/excluded from
that?>>

There's a midrash comparing Moshe Rabenu as "lo ish devarim anochi"
becoming "eileh hadevarim asher diber Moshe Ish Ha'Elokim".  The
presumption
that the transformation took place at Matan Torah is as good as any.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On  SBA asked:
> Why should the burning bush cure him (Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering)?

Since HKBH wanted Moshe to deliver the Yidden, it would have nullified
one of his arguments.

- Danny

R' Danny Schoemann wrote:
> My 8 year old wanted to know why Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering
> wasn't healed at the burning bush. To this I answered that
> since Moshe Rabeinu didn't daven for it, it didn't happen.

Our yeshiva (JEC in Elizabeth NJ) prints a sheet each week with 
divrei Torah submitted by the students. Doniel Witkin, a 12th grader, 
addressed this very question.

First he quoted Shemos 4:10-12 ("mi SAM peh l'adam o mi YASUM eelaym 
o cheresh o pikeach o iver...") and then he wrote:

Moshe explained to Hashem that from a delegation standpoint, it was 
unbecoming of him to go to Pharaoh as he had difficulty speaking and 
therefore was not a suitable emissary of Hashem due to his lack of 
eloquence. Hashem answered Moshe that He had done this to Moshe. 
Seemingly though, Hashem should have healed Moshe instead of sending 
him as he was. Also, why does the passuk use the terminology of 
placing, making one deaf or blind, what does that have to do with 
Moshe's point that he has difficulty speaking?

R' Yehoshua Leib Diskin ZT"L, Rav of Brisk and later in Yerushalayim 
explained that Moshe's intent in saying that he was not a man of 
words was to cause Hashem to heal him, and then he would never have a 
problem of being unable to speak eloquently again. Hashem answered 
Moshe that it is an incorrect notion to think that a person who lacks 
some of his five senses is missing a part of his wholeness. Who 
placed a mouth in a person? The person Who created speech, Hashem. 
Hashem *placed* speech, blindness, and deafness, meaning it was 
Hashem's will. So too, someone who has a full mental capacity, should 
realize it's only because of Hashem's will. Therefore, Hashem asked 
Moshe, why are you asking me to heal you and thereby give you the 
ability to speak easily like everyone else? I created you the way you 
are and I want you to remain the way you are. You want to know how 
you will be able to speak to Pharaoh? I shall be with your mouth, and 
I will teach you what to say. This was an even bigger miracle than 
healing Moshe, because Moshe had trouble speaking his whole life, but 
when he spoke to Pharaoh, he had no problem, because Hashem wanted to 
show that Moshe was His messenger.

(end of vort from Doniel Witkin)

I learned two things from this: First, that a person who has a 
disability of some kind should realize that Hashem created him that 
way deliberately, and it is not necessarily something that needs to 
be "fixed". Second, notwithstanding the above, the reality is that it 
*IS* a disability which no amount of political correctness can cover 
up, and there very well might be some situations where the disability 
might need to be compensated for.

Akiva Miller

From: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
> On  SBA asked:
>> Why should the burning bush cure him (Moshe Rabeinu's stuttering)?

> Since HKBH wanted Moshe to deliver the Yidden, it would have nullified
> one of his arguments.

I have long ago heard an explanation for his stuttering, so no one could 
later claim that they accepted the Torah because of succumbing to
Moshe Rabeinu's great oratory.

Last week's Alim Litrufah has this explanation from the Droshos haRan.

SBA

From: "David Cohen" <>
I am interested in learning more about the history of the adoption of
the Israeli pronunciation system...
====

Uriel Zimmer (no mean linguist himself) writes about it
in his booklet "Torah Judaism and the State of Israel" in the chapter
"Ivrith" and "L'shon Hakodesh" . available on-line
http://www.israelversusjudaism.org/torah-judaism/lshon-hakodesh.cfm

Some snippets..

In the course of transformation and "normalization" of the Jewish people,
the language naturally had to be transformed likewise. The "Holy Tongue"
which, ..plays such a fundamental role in the Torah, must also have its
place assigned to it under the new "normalized" set up. Just as Yisroel
became "the Jewish Nation", just as the Holy Land became first the
"Vaterland" and later "the State", just as Torah became a "religion", in the
same manner, "the Holy Tongue" had to become ?the national language?. ....

the "revival of Hebrew" or, more precisely, its transformation from the
status of the Holy Tongue into the "national language" became almost a sport
with early Zionists. During the early stages of Zionism, it constituted the
easiest part of its task for, in those days, every Jew had some idea of
Hebrew through his prayer-book and Chumash. It is only after estrangement
from Torah Judaism, largely due to that very same Zionism, that learning
Hebrew seems to have become a task of exceptional difficulty for Zionists
residing in the diaspora...

... To make it more attractive on the one side, and to emphasize the
distinctness from the "L'shon Hakodesh" of the Beth Hamidrash, somebody
invented a special device: the so-called ?Sephardic? pronunciation (which,
as we shall soon see,is not Sephardic at all). ...giving it an exotic
flavour. The reason given for the selection of the "Sephardic" pronunciation
was that it is the more ancient and the more original and correct way of
pronouncing Hebrew.

Scientifically speaking, this entire reasoning is, to say the least,
somewhat amateurish.
Firstly, one must not confuse all Oriental Jews with
those originating from Spain (Sephard). "Sephardi" pronunciation, in the
loose popular use of the term, is as varied as Ashkenazi.
Secondly, its ?antiquity? as compared with the varieties of Ashkenazi
pronunciation is, again, to say the least, a fact which has yet to be 
proved.
Even if this were so, it would still be questionable, even from a purely 
nationalist
view-point, without any consideration for the traditional Jewish principle
of "Do not forsake thy mother's teaching" whether the antiquity of a
pronunciation necessarily means that it must continue to be followed in the
present and future.

 .... there is no scientific proof that the allegedly
?Sephardi? pronunciation really is the older one. The accepted scientific
opinion, and I am referring here to linguists and not necessarily to
orthodox Jews, is rather that both trends of pronunciation derive from
ancient dialects, the one having been used in the Southern part and the
other in the Northern part of Palestine. In any event, it remains a fact,
for instance, that the pronunciation of Hebrew of the Yemenites approximates
to the "Ashkenazic" pronunciation, as far as the vowels are concerned, of
Lithuanian Jews (inasmuch as the "cholom" is pronounced "ay"). Nor has
anyone ever claimed that Yemenite Jews had once been under any influence of
German Jews. According to their own tradition, the Jewish community of Yemen
dates back to the era of the First Temple.

..The Zionist adoption of the "Sephardi" pronunciation meant a double loss,
again, from the purely linguistic viewpoint, without any other
consideration.
 Ashkenazi pronunciations make a clearer distinction between
the vowels patach and kometz and distinguish between the aspirated and the
unaspirated "tav".
The "Sephardi" pronunciation, on the other hand, has the
advantage of distinguishing between the various gutturals (alef and ayin,
khof and het) but this distinction is made only by Jews who live in the
sphere of the Arabic language where these consonants are also distinctly
pronounced. There is, of course, no organic connection between the
"Sephardi" (kamatz-a) pronunciation and the distinct pronunciation of
gutturals. (Yemenites, who, as has been said, cling in some respects to the
"Ashkenazi" way of pronouncing vowels, pronounce consonants even more
distinctly than Sephardim inasmuch as they distinguish also between the
aspirate and inaspirate of d, g, and t).

Modern "Ivrit" pronunciation, even from the purely linguistic viewpoint,
combines the disadvantages and shortcomings of all groups.

Like "Sephardim", it disregards the distinctions between pathach and kamatz
and between aspirate and inaspirate tav, while retaining the Ashkenazi
disregard for the pronunciation of gutturals and the distinction between the
kaf and qof, etc.

RE: Danny Schoemann's daughter asked why Moshe's stuttering was not
healed by the sneh.  And DS asks if there is a source for Moshe being
included / excluded from refuah at Matan Torah.  Great to hear about a
thinking child asking good questions.  I'm not sure "stuttering" is the
only (or even most accepted) p'shat in "aral s'fasayim".   Assuming that
understanding for a moment, another limud that could be conveyed (in
addition to the importance of davening) is that not every difference is
an illness. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070115/dbd4faf9/attachment-0001.html 

kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:

> First he quoted Shemos 4:10-12 ("mi SAM peh l'adam o mi YASUM eelaym 
> o cheresh o pikeach o iver...") and then he wrote:
> [...]
> Hashem answered 
> Moshe that it is an incorrect notion to think that a person who lacks 
> some of his five senses is missing a part of his wholeness. Who 
> placed a mouth in a person? The person Who created speech, Hashem. 
> Hashem *placed* speech, blindness, and deafness, meaning it was 
> Hashem's will. So too, someone who has a full mental capacity, should 
> realize it's only because of Hashem's will. Therefore, Hashem asked 
> Moshe, why are you asking me to heal you and thereby give you the 
> ability to speak easily like everyone else? I created you the way you 
> are and I want you to remain the way you are.


The source of this explanation is the Malbim.  Kedarko, he is
trying to explain the simple meaning of the words, and asks why
the pasuk changes tenses in mid-sentence.

Malbim explains that Moshe's objection was rooted in his assumption
that the default state for a person is not to have any abilities,
and Hashem gives a person only those abilities that he needs.  Since
he had not been given the power of clear speech, he assumed that his
mission in life did not require that ability.  He was therefore
surprised to be given one of the few jobs that do require it, and
protested that surely there must be some mistake.

Hashem explained to him that his assumption was incorrect.  "Mi *sam*
peh la'adam": when I made man, nearly 2500 years ago, I gave him a
mouth, and all the normal abilities.  A person, by default, can see,
hear, speak, walk, etc.  When a person has all these abilities, no
conclusion can be drawn from that fact; he's just normal.  But "mi
*yasum* ilem o cheresh...o iver" (in the continuing present tense):
when I create each person, I make him dumb or deaf, if I have some
particular reason for doing so.  In other words, the lack of one of
the normal abilities is a departure from the default state of man,
and must have a reason.  The fact that you were created without the
faculty of clear speech means that your mission in life requires you
davka not to have it; now I reveal to you that the reason was so that
when you speak clearly to Par'oh it will be seen as a miracle.

Unfortunately, Malbim doesn't explain "o pikeach", which would seem
to contradict this.

DISCLAIMER: I last saw this inside over 15 years ago, so I may be
misremembering it.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 3
*************************************

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..."