Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 7

Mon, 07 Jan 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmo...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:45:52 +0200
Re: [Avodah] non-existent midrashim

On 1/6/2013 5:23 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> It turns out that some midrashim that we all "know" either have no 
> none source or a very obscure source
> Two examples:
> 1)The Jews in Egypt did not change their names, their language or 
> their clothing - no none source
> the general psak today is that one can indeed wear clothing from the 
> goyim as long as it has a purpose
there is a medrash which says this

?Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus XXXII:5 R. Huna stated in the name of Bar 
Kappara: Israel were redeemed from Egypt on account of four things, viz. 
because they did not change their names, they did not change their 
language, they did not go tale-bearing, and none of them was found to 
have been immoral. ?They did not change their name, having gone down as 
Reuben and Simeon, and having come up as Reuben and Simeon. They did not 
call Judah ' Leon ?,1 nor Reuben ' Rufus ?, nor Joseph ?Lestes ?, nor 
Benjamin ?Alexander?. ?They did not change their language,? as may be 
inferred from the fact that it is written elsewhere, And there came one 
that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew (Gen. XIV, 13), while here 
it is written, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us (Ex. III 18), and 
it is also written, It is my mouth that speaketh unto you (Gen. XLV, 
12), which means that he spoke in Hebrew. ?They did not speak slander,? 
as may be inferred from the fact that it says, Speak now in the ears of 
the people and let them ask... jewels of silver (Ex. XI, 2). You find 
that this matter was confided to them for a whole twelve months, yet no 
one acted as tale-bearer against his neighbour.2 ?Nor was any of them 
found to have been immoral.? There is proof that this was so, since 
there was one exception and Scripture exposed her; as it says, AND HIS 
(XXIV, 11). She was called SHELOMITH because, said R. Levi, she was very 
free with her greetings (shelama)3 of ' Peace (shalom) to thee, Peace to 
you. THE DAUGHTER OF DIBRI, because, said R. Isaac, she brought 
destruction (deber) on her son. OF THE TRIBE OF DAN. as much as to say, 
he is a disgrace to his mother, a disgrace to himself, a disgrace to his 
family, and a disgrace to the tribe from which he sprang.

This is cited in Igros Moshe(O.C. 4:66):??"? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ? 
???? ??

???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??"? ???"? ?"? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? 
????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? 
????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?"? ?"? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? 
??????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? 
??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????"? ?? 
??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????, ???? ????? ?????? 
?????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? 
???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? 
?? ??, ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? 
??? ?? ???????? ????"? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? 
???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?"? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? 
????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???"? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? 
????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? 
?? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ????. ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ????? 

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmo...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:02:47 +0200
Re: [Avodah] Psak in Machshava

*Chasam Sofer (Y.D. 2:356)* R' Hillel who is quoted in Sanhedrin (99a) 
as rejecting salvation through Moshiach but asserted [according to 
Rashi] that G-d Himself would directly save the Jews. Rashi is without a 
doubt correct that R' Hillel was not rejecting the fact of salvation but 
only the agency of Moshiach... Furthermore, it is obvious that we don't 
accept his view. In fact someone today who asserted that there will be 
no Moshiach because he accepts R' Hillel's view is denying the principle 
of the Torah to follow the majority position. Since the overwhelming 
majority of sages have rejected this view no one has the right to go 
against that majority and insist on accepting the sole dissenting view 
of R' Hillel. This is no different that the case of R' Eliezer who ruled 
in for his community that it permitted on Shabbos to cut wood to make 
charcoal to make iron for a milah knife in order to do bris mila on 
Shabbos. Since the majority of Torah scholars rejected this view, anyone 
who performs these actions on Shabbos before witness and with a warning 
is liable to capital punishment and he cannot claim that he is following 
the authority of R' Eliezer. This that it teaches in Eduyos "Why are the 
minority views taught" is in fact obviously dealing with a different 
issue which there is no need to go into here. Nevertheless even though 
Salvation and the coming of Moshiach are themselves not foundation 
principles that determine Judaism but a person who doesn't accept them 
is rejecting the foundation principle of belief in the Torah and the 
words of the prophets

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 06:28:14 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Psak in Machshava

On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 01:02:47PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> *Chasam Sofer (Y.D. 2:356)* R' Hillel who is quoted in Sanhedrin (99a)  
> as rejecting salvation through Moshiach but asserted [according to  
> Rashi] that G-d Himself would directly save the Jews...

I believe it was this kind of thing that motivated R' Joel Rich
to include the parenthetic comments in his original question:
: I think we've discussed the general issue of psak in machshava (or at
: least in the ikkarim)...                      Eruvin 13b specifically
: uses what IIUC is the language of psak in a case of machshava (unless
: there is a halachic implication to whether we would have been better
: off created or not)

There is a halachic implications inherent in accepting the concept
of iqarim: They define the limits of rebellion for which one could be
labeled a kofeir, apiqoreis or min. They impact who we can count toward
a minyan, whose wine we may drink, the chovos halvavos side of qabbalas
ol mitzvos before geirus, etc...

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Joe Slater <avod...@slatermold.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 22:20:48 +1100
Re: [Avodah] What date was the Torah given?

I don't know if anyone has provided this suggestion, but I think it
satisfies the considerations of both peshat and derush:

The reason we are unsure of the date of Matan Torah is that everyone other
than Moshe was unsure of it. The mitzva of kiddush hachodesh was given in
Egypt, but subsequent new moons fell when the Jews were protected by the
ananei hakavod ("clouds of glory"). The Jews (certainly Moshe Rabbeinu)
knew the length of a lunar month and the number of days since Rosh Chodesh
Nisan (because of the mitzvot of preparing the first Seder, which were
specified by the relevant dates), but subsequently nobody was in a position
to observe the new moon - the thing which determines the day on rosh
chodesh. The lengths of the months of Nisan and Iyar (and hence the date of
Matan Torah) were not only unknown, but unknowable. So, you might ask, why
couldn't Moshe sanctify the new moons based on the same logical principles
that would be used by the Sanhedrin? My answer is that perhaps he could and
perhaps he did, but what would kiddush hachodesh mean at that point in
time? There was no Sanhedrin and therefore no need for a vote; there was no
Mishkan at the time in which to offer the musafin (extra sacrifices) of
rosh chodesh and no mitzva to offer them, in any event; there was no
intervening yom tov for which the date would need to be known. So unless
Moshe Rabbenu told someone what the date was, nobody knew - they would have
reasoned that it was one of two possible dates, but that's as far as they
could go. Later, when the Mishkan was built, Moshe would have needed to
instruct Aharon to offer the special sacrifices of rosh chodesh and *that*
was probably what kiddush hachodesh consisted of, at that time. But  I
presume that before then kiddush hachodesh was something which Moshe
Rabbenu did either mentally or verbally by calculation, and in his great
humility he saw no need to go around telling everyone that he had just
performed a mitzva on behalf of Klal Yisroel. Once the moon had been
sanctified the date had no halachic relevance and there was no point
gossiping about it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: menucha <m...@inter.net.il>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:59:42 +0200
Re: [Avodah] non-existent midrashim

> 2) King David claimed that the spider has no purpose in the world. 
> Once when he was being hunted by King Saul a spider spun its web in 
> front of the cave so that Saul thought no one could be inside and 
> David escaped.

Alsheich brings this in Tehilim 31.  He starts off with the words 
"Veamru Rabboteinu z"l...."

It would be more humble of us to call this thread "midrashim which we 
are unfamiliar with"



Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 7

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

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 at
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous Next >