Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 62

Thu, 14 Jun 2012

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:41:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim


On 13/06/2012 2:23 AM, hankman wrote:
> If we assume 40 people per chabura

Why so few?   A lamb can yield about 15 kg of edible meat; divided up
at a kezayit each that can feed about 500 people.  So let's say 400,
and bring your numbers down by an order of magnitude.   7500 korbanot
over the course of five hours is 25 a minute.  Three kohanim might *just*
be able to manage that, if they had assistants to do the shechita, to
run the empty basins back to the beginning of the line, and to butcher
the animals and extract the emurim.  If Moshe remained a kohen for life
then they had four, which makes it a bit more manageable.


On 12/06/2012 9:51 PM, Harry Weiss wrote:
> Until Shiloh private Bamot were allowed for some things.   Perhaps
> they were brought on Private Bamot where no Kohen wasw needed.

1. Korban Pesach was never allowed at a bamah.
2. In the midbar bamot were not allowed.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon




Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 06:18:04 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] A question of Yichus


On 13/06/2012 5:05 AM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
>> Who said anything about his signing the papers?  Why is that necessary?
>> He can refuse to sign the papers if he likes; what will they do to him?
>> All he has to do is not object when the mother registers the child, and
>> allow people to make the natural (and halachic) assumption that it's his.

> That's true, but it still seems complicated. What's he going to do at the
> Bris - not make the berachah? Not answer at the Kerias Hashem when the
> fellow asks for the name and the father's name?

I assume he isn't going to show up to the bris, or any other family event.
Why would he?  After an acrimonious divorce he wants nothing to do with
his ex, and that's it.


> If someone asks "How's your son?"  He has to make sure never to answer
> "My son's okay."

Why would anyone think to ask him this?  I don't think even a positive
answer like that would constitute "huchzak mipiv", but I imagine he'd be
more likely to answer "How should I know? Ask his mother".   The whole
point here is that he wants nothing to do with her or her spawn, but he
doesn't want to ruin the kid's life if he doesn't have to.  So I don't
expect he'll be associated socially with a kid he's never seen.


>It seems really difficult not to establish any kind of chazakah

There's no need to avoid "any kind of chazakah".  On the contrary, the
power of "yakir" is precisely on a child who is "huchzak" to be his.
The only thing he wants to avoid is "huchzak mipiv", which signing
documents might do.  So let him not sign them, but merely agree not to
object when the mother lies on them.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:08 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?


On 13/06/2012 11:50 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Hence the "used to be".  The quoted reason depends on this belief.
>> If the modern understanding is true, then this reason can't be.

> Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
> being miSinai are two different things.

For the reason to be true, our system of nikud, complete with our
symbols, had to exist at the time that Moshe renamed Hoshea.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <r...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 02:03:33 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Spouse vs. parent


>>>As long as we're asking, how do you understand only shloshim for
a spouse?<<<<

>>>The usual explanation is that aveilus for parents is 1 year because
of kibud av ve-em, not because the loss is greater than that of a spouse
or a child<<<.

>>I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual
that can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).<<

>I think R'YBS gave the loss of the link in the mesorah chain.<

These answers all were given at a nichum aveilim visit to RYBS, in the
year when he had three losses -- mother, brother and wife -- in six
months. The question came up while my father and Rav Hutner were there.
Rav Hutner gave the mesora-chain answer. (His wording was that when
a father passes away, the son is one generation farther from Sinai.)
My father's answer was that parents can have more than one child, while
a child has only one of each parent. RYBS gave the answer of the extra
months being for kibbud av va'eim.

EMT



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Doron Beckerman <beck...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:25:51 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Spouse vs. parent


A story about RYBS, Rav Hutner, and Rav Pinchas Teitz discussing this when
RYBS was sitting Shiva for his wife.

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51117&;st=&pgnum=209
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/4dfc1a51/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:05:11 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?


On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 11:54:08AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
>> being miSinai are two different things.

> For the reason to be true, our system of nikud, complete with our
> symbols, had to exist at the time that Moshe renamed Hoshea.

Exist, yes. Revealed to humans, not necessarily.

Particularly since these are derashos -- peshat is that a diqduq rule
applies, or there were different dialects. (Perhaps those who use
"bis" as in "Bisyah" used "bin".) IOW, they are layers of meaning HQBH
providentially provided, and needn't have been part of MRAH's personal
intent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:30:14 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?


> That is not a valid analogy. "Binyamin" IS one word.
> "Bin Nun" is 2 words and the context is not the same.

Are they really two words?  Doesn't the makaf make them one word?
And in what way is the context different?  What does Binyamin mean?
"Son of the right".  So how is it different from this?

It is different because Binyamin is one person, the son of (BEN) another.
Yehoshua BIN Nun is two people: father and son.
Binyamin is not both the father and son.  That is what I mean by context.
Of course, the etymology and meaning of Binyamin is "son of right" but
that is not what we are talking about. We're talking about Yehoshua BIN Nun,
two people. [Joshua and his father Nun]. And the way we say so and so the son of so and so, 
we say: Ploni BEN Ploni, not BIN Ploni. And the fact that the name of Ploni happens to
contain the word "bin" is coincidental to the fact that he is still Ploni BEN Ploni.
It would be the same as someone whose name was Bentziyon. He would still be
Bentziyon ben Avrohom. Even if he were Bintziyon, he would still be Bintziyon ben Avrohom.
The whole question here is why is BIN used instead of BEN. And every response given
I knew about. None of them were satisfying and the fact that there are that many explanations, 
means everyone is speculating. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/18bd6e42/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: hankman <hank...@bell.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:55:24 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?


RMB wrote:
But mequbalim believe in progressive revalation. so what's the big If the
Ari could reveal something min haShamayim that wasn't known until him,
then why does niqud have to be miSinai in order to be "real"? The "only"
problem is asserting the antiquity of those parts of the Tiqunei Zohar
(eg the discussion of tzeirei on 7b). 

RMB also wrote:
Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
being miSinai are two different things. Particularly since we're talking
about statements made in the Zohar, and thus are already stated within
the context of progressive revelation.

CM notes:
I am not much of a mequbal so it is safe to say I have never heard of this
idea of ?progressive revelation.? If I intuit the meaning correctly then I
have a major problem with this concept. Based on the hashkafot I was
taught, this idea would be heretical grade A. Torah was revealed to man but
once at Sinai. At any later time any claim for a new or additional
revelation is false and any person making such a claim is per force, even
if he is a known navi,	a navi sheker and to be punished as such. This
seems to me to be squarely at odds with the idea of progressive revelation.
 Whereas ?Torah lo bashomayim hi? fits neatly with the hashkofot as I was
taught, progressive revelation does not. What am I missing here?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/4553ea1b/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:24:04 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] Spouse vs. parent


and i had  heard that  in teh case of  spouse/child/sib  the  loss felt is 
 very great----   while  the  limit is one  month  , the pain will go on 
much longer.   in the case of  parents, unfortunately, there is sometimes 
a lack of  appreciation , and  a longe r time period  need be mandated....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/d34c0f9d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:15:25 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?


On 13/06/2012 12:55 PM, hankman wrote:
> I am not much of a mequbal so it is safe to say I have never heard of
> this idea of ?progressive revelation.? If I intuit the meaning
> correctly then I have a major problem with this concept. Based on the
> hashkafot I was taught, this idea would be heretical grade A. Torah
> was revealed to man but once at Sinai. At any later time any claim for
> a new or additional revelation is false and any person making such a
> claim is per force, even if he is a known navi,  a navi sheker and to
> be punished as such. This seems to me to be squarely at odds with the
> idea of progressive revelation.  Whereas ?Torah lo bashomayim hi? fits
> neatly with the hashkofot as I was taught, progressive revelation does
> not. What am I missing here?

Then what is nevuah?  "Vezot Hatorah" means no new *halachot* can
be given.  But secrets of Torah can be revealed.   After all, "Torah
chadasha me'iti tetzei".

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:40:09 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] yehoshua ben nun


> The yud added to
> Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
> dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
> dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
believed. >>

I thought everyone accepted the pronunciation is from sinai. The discussion
is only on the representation and names of the vowels which seems to be
from Tiberia in the days of the Geonim.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/2beda041/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:14:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Spouse vs. parent


On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 21:25 -0400, hankman wrote:
> RMF wrote:
> I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual
> that
> can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).
> 
> CM responds:
> Grandparents are also not ?replaceable? but you do not even sit shiva
> for them at all. Similarly, an uncle or an aunt are also not
> replaceable (assuming the grandparents can no longer bear children or
> are no longer living) and one does not sit shiva for them either. It
> seems to my way of seeing things, that ?replaceability? does not enter
> the calculus of shiva.

That doesn't mean that "replaceability" isn't a factor, simply that it's
only applied in conjunction with another factor -- namely the person
being close enough to you to require shiva in the first place.




Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:39:18 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Ruth/Conversion


http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/ruth/10ruth.htm

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/6bb800cd/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:23:03 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yehoshua ben nun


On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 12:40:09PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I thought everyone accepted the pronunciation is from sinai. The discussion
: is only on the representation and names of the vowels which seems to be
: from Tiberia in the days of the Geonim.

The grouping of sounds into which are the same vowel and which aren't is
not etched in stone. In Japanese, /r/ and /l/ are different versions of
the same sound. To Israelis, /ee/ and /i/ are different versions of the
same sound, as well as /A/ and /e/ -- so "paper" often comes out "pepper".
To put it technically, there are different allophones that speakers of
a dialect would group into phonemes. And people who think of two sounds
as being the same phoneme often only hear the difference with difficulty

Then there is the vowel symbol. Qamatz gadol and qamatz qatan share the
same symbol, but are different phonemes, each of which come out as a
range of allophones.

And that's just with one accent. Then we have multiple accents dating
back to the shevatim.

Bavel and Teveriyah probably didn't only argue on the number of vowel
symbols, but also on phonemes. IOW, in Bavel, the vowel on the mem in
"melekh" and in "malkhus" was not only drawn the same, but was probably
pronounced much more similarly. (Which we see traces of this among
Teimanim, who never stopped using Bavli niqud for things like Targum.)

So, what was "miSinai" was at most a range of vowel sounds (or lack
thereof) for each letter in the chumash. Or up to 12 ranges? Someone
then analyzed these 304,805 instances and realized patterns, that they
could be grouped into 5 to 11 vowels or so (plus sheva nach), depending
upon the set of accents they studied. And then they mapped those to a
symbol system to denote them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: "Simi Peters" <famil...@actcom.net.il>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 17:30:37 +0300
Subject:
[Avodah] mourning for a parent


One might ask why there has to be a halakhic obligation to mourn for
anyone.  After all, most people feel a sense of grief at the loss of those
who are dear to them and we might think there is no need to ritualize 
that.  Still, halakha requires minimum periods of mourning and specifies
rites and obligations of grief, just as it sets requirements for all other
aspects of our lives.

This is just a guess, but it seems to me that the year-long mourning period
mandated for a parent is a response to the complexity of the child-parent
relationship--the tension that often exists between personal feelings and
moral obligations.  There are children who do not feel particularly
mournful at the death of a parent or whose mourning is mixed with relief
(or worse).  There are also children who are waiting to inherit and are
more preoccupied with that than they are with grief.  (I hasten to add that
I still very much miss my parents many years after their loss, so I am not
speaking from personal experience.)  In response to this, the halakha
*obligates* the child to mourn, whether or not he wants to, conveying the
idea that whatever the nature of the child's relationship with his parents,
he owes them the ultimate hakarat hatov for having been given life through
them and must therefore enact mourning even if he does not entirely feel
it.

In contrast, the loss of a child is almost universally an experience of
utter devastation for any parent.  The halakha does not have to enforce
mourning, since the parent will likely grieve over the child as long as the
parent lives.  In any event, the parent has very few (if any) halakhic
obligations to his child.  The 'official' period of mourning is, therefore,
relatively short.

By the same token, the loss of a spouse is either felt as a tragedy or not,
while in some cases, the spouse may feel ambivalent.  In any event, death
dissolves the actual bond of marriage with its attendant obligations. After
the death of a spouse, one's conduct and feelings with respect to that
relationship are no longer a matter of obligation but of personal emotion. 
The halakha therefore requires a mourning period, but, as in the case of a
child, makes it relatively short, leaving personal aspects of grieving to
the bereaved (or not terribly bereaved) spouse.

If my theory is correct, the year-long mourning for a parent is meant to over-ride or compensate for situations where the child might not grieve sufficiently.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120614/2e64c29e/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:49:47 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] yehoshua ben nun


On 14/06/2012 5:40 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>>  The yud added to
>>>  Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
>>>  dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
>>>  dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

>> This implies that nekudot are misinai, which used to be universally
>> believed. >>

> I thought everyone accepted the pronunciation is from sinai. The
> discussion is only on the representation and names of the vowels
> which seems to be from Tiberia in the days of the Geonim.

What has this got to do with the pronunciation?


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 62
**************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >