Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 168

Mon, 15 Dec 2014

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:04:15 GMT
Re: [Avodah] building the third temple

On Areivim, R' Eli Turkel wrote:
: I assume that when the third temple is built it will have modern
: conveniences like plumbling/bathrooms perhaps electric lights
: and maybe even airconditioning/heating

On Avodah, R' Micha Berger added:

> I also presume electric lighting, passive element microphones for
> the levitic orchestra, Haqhel, etc... Bullet-proof bullet trains
> to the nearest ir miqlat, writ from BD required for entry.

Personally, I'm hoping for a SkyCam (see Wikipedia) like those used for
televising sporting events. And some sort of conveyor belt system, at least
for Erev Pesach.

RMB continued:

> But... the bathrooms would have to be outside the azarah. This is
> a siddur issue. Most nusachos quote the version of the Y-mi where
> R' Shimon b Gamliel explains "she'ein machnisim mei raglayim
> bamiqdash mipenei hakavod", whereas the Gra's siddur (and some
> manuscripts of Y-mi Pe'ah) has R' Shimon b Elazar and the word
> "ba'aZarah". I presume that the Gra's issue is that "miqdash" is
> far too broad; by default it would include all of Y-m. ...

It is quite possible that the bathrooms would be a problem, but the source
you bring seems a little weak. Your source specifies "ein machnisim", but
the situation is one where the mei raglayim *originates* in the Mikdash; it
is never actually *brought in*. It *might* be analogous to Maaser Sheni --
The halachos are a bit different for Maaser Sheni which was brought into
Yerushalayim vs. Maaser Sheni which originated there (i.e., the tevel was
maasered within Yerushalayim).

The bathrooms themselves might also be a problem. Or they might not, depending on how one holds as to the status of our modern flush toilets.

Akiva Miller
Apple&#39;s Crazy New Gizmo
Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product leaked. &#40;see picture&#41;

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Michael Poppers
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:42:45 -0500
Re: [Avodah] tying shel yad

In Avodah V32n167, RMC asked:
> Does anyone have a diagram (or location on the web) of how to tie the shel
? ?
with the knot that holds the kesher next to the bayit
? ?
(without needing a piece of gid etc) <
I? found a series of videos on the process.  Start with the "step 2" video
(for right-handed people, the URL within the playlist is

? and then find the appropriate "step 3" video for your situation.  HTH :).

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:25:49 -0500
Re: [Avodah] cutting tephillin retzuos

On 12/10/2014 11:36 AM, M Cohen via Avodah wrote:
>> The m'b is machmir lchatchila not to cut tzitis with metal
>> (although the connection between tzitis and mizbeach is unclear to me)

It seems to me that the connection is simply that it's a mitzvah
and we see that the Torah finds metal unsuitable for mitzvos.
(That we use it nowadays for milah requires a special explanation,
which itself shows that by default it should be unsuitable.)

> Does this issue also apply to cutting tephillin retzuos?

My brother the sofer says no, and while he hasn't seen a written
reason why, as a practical matter it would be difficult to make
retzuos *without* metal.

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:29:46 -0500
[Avodah] holiday on the 25th

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 06:25:17PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Areivim wrote:
: Chanuka was chosen to begin on the 25th since that was the anniversary of
: when it was defiled by the Greeks (Chashmanoim 1 - 4:52

: It is not clear whay was the miracle that the oil lasted for 8 days. Why
: couldn't they just wait until they got pure oil. The mizbeach had already
: not been used for several years so another few days would not be a big
: deal. It would seem that it was important to them that it begin on exactly
: the same date it was defiled.

I think both the Hellenists and the Chashmanaim had in mind Chagai 2:18,
which mentions the 24th of the 9th month as the "yom asher yusad heikhal
Hashem". Any attempt to qidshah lesha'ata uqidshah le'asi lavo would
assume they're supposed to be doe with the construction/dedication on
Kislev 24, and starting the actual avodah on the 25th.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 15:17:41 -0500
Re: [Avodah] cutting tephillin retzuos

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 10:25:49PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: It seems to me that the connection is simply that it's a mitzvah
: and we see that the Torah finds metal unsuitable for mitzvos.

Except for the menorah, beris milah and shechitah (both qodshin and
chullin). (There is a kelal uperat ukelal on Menachos 28a explaining
the the menorah would be kasher if made out of any metal. So it's not
simply about gold.)

So I'm not sure how far the avoidance of metal should be generalized
beyond tzitzis and making the mizbeiach.

Tir'u baTov!

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)

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:08:57 +0200
[Avodah] chasmanoic dates

As Micha and I have noted 25 Kislev was a known date before Judah
rededicated the mizbeach.

Also Nikanor was defeated on the 13th of Adar which was the battle date of
the Jews against their enemies in the Persian empire (they rested on the

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:20:08 +0200
[Avodah] chanukah candles

The halacha is that one should place the candles below 10 tefachim (36-40
It would seem that for people to see the candles the best height is
eye-level. This is what is done in museums.

Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 14:41:43 GMT
Re: [Avodah] cutting tephillin retzuos

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> It seems to me that the connection is simply that it's a
> mitzvah and we see that the Torah finds metal unsuitable
> for mitzvos.

Where do you see that "the Torah finds metal unsuitable for mitzvos"?

It's true that the Torah - in Shmos 20:22 - finds metal unsuitable for the
Mizbe'ach, but metal is widely used for other mitzvos. So many of the
keilim of the Mishkan are metal; the wooden Aron was metal-plated both
inside and outside; should the Baal Koreh use only a wooden or plastic yad
when he lains?

One might even argue that the very pasuk I cited explicitly allows metal for non-Mizbe'ach purposes. See Torah Temimah #129 there.

> (That we use it nowadays for milah requires a special
> explanation, which itself shows that by default it should
> be unsuitable.)

On the contrary. Anything that cuts is suitable for milah - Mechaber YD
264:2. One may even tear off the orlah by hand, as no instrument is
required - Aruch Hashulchan YD 264:15.

In my cursory research, I did not see any preference for metal in general,
only a preference for iron, suggesting that a silver knife would *not* be
preferable to a glass knife.

Akiva Miller
The #1 Worst Carb Ever?
Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar &#40;Don&#39;t Eat This!&#41;

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:11:16 GMT
Re: [Avodah] chanukah candles

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> The halacha is that one should place the candles below 10
> tefachim (36-40 inches).
> It would seem that for people to see the candles the best
> height is eye-level. This is what is done in museums.

Mishneh Brurah 671:27 explains: "There is more publicity of the miracle
when it is low, because something which is designed for light is not
normally placed so low."

It is important to remember that there is no requirement to use a menorah
having any particular shape or design (other than, for example, that they
should be separate from someone else's lights, and that they should be a
noticeable group, so that the number of lights for the person is easily
counted). But, for example, on the first night, a person living alone could
simply have one candle burning, without any sort of menorah calling
attention to its status as a Ner Chanuka.

In such a situation -- a lone candle on a window sill -- where is the
"publicity for the miracle"? Who knows why that candle is there? For
whatever reason, Chazal did not establish any sort of labeling requirement.
Rather, they simply instituted preventive measures which would help to
insure that it would not be confused with a light whose purpose is

If anyone wants to suggest a possible implementation of a "labeling
requirement" which would have been sensible and appropriate back then, I
think it would be an interesting discussion. Personally, I can't think of a
simple and uniform rule offhand.

Akiva Miller
Apple&#39;s Crazy New Gizmo
Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product leaked. &#40;see picture&#41;

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 17:04:07 -0500
Re: [Avodah] cutting tephillin retzuos

On 12/15/2014 09:41 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> It seems to me that the connection is simply that it's a
>> mitzvah and we see that the Torah finds metal unsuitable
>> for mitzvos.
> Where do you see that "the Torah finds metal unsuitable for mitzvos"?

Clarification: I copied the word "metal" from the OP (M Cohen), but
in fact we both meant iron.  As far as I know there is no inyan
mentioned anywhere not to use other metals to cut the tzitzis.
What the MA quotes from the Shaloh and Mateh Moshe is 1) not to
use an (iron) knife, and 2) preferably to use the teeth (see
Machtzis Hashekel for a reason to use davka the teeth).

>> (That we use it nowadays for milah requires a special
>> explanation, which itself shows that by default it should
>> be unsuitable.)
> On the contrary. Anything that cuts is suitable for milah - Mechaber
> YD 264:2. One may even tear off the orlah by hand, as no instrument is
> required - Aruch Hashulchan YD 264:15.

Anything that cuts is *kosher*, but in ancient times we used to
use stone, and now we davka use metal, and we're given a specific
reason for the change, because of the story of David Hamelech and
Golyas, which itself shows that metal is inherently not the ideal
substance to use.

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:03:24 -0500
Re: [Avodah] heter mechirah lo techanem

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 06:21:24PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: Does anyone really expect to collect their kesuba today?
: From memory the sums in the standard kesuba are not very large

Since every gett is settled in court, this is a question about almanos
and halachically valid wills. No?

Tir'u baTov!

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:27:17 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Re; Puns in the Torah

From Gush's VBM-GEOGRAPHY email list, for parashas Vayeishev

R/Prof Elitzur discusses wordplay in the Torah in the context of
place names, but then broadens the discussion.


                              YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
                            GEOGRAPHY IN THE PARASHA
                               PARASHAT VAYESHEV

                      "He Was At Chezib When She Bore Him"
                             By Prof. Yoel Elitzur

   Hidden Interpretations of Biblical Names

   As we mentioned earlier, in our discussion on Parashat Vayetze,
   the interpretations given throughout Tanakh of names of people and
   places generally do not account for how these names were first
   created. Instead, they serve to inject new homiletical meaning,
   based on the events that our ancestors experienced, into names that
   already existed. To add a new dimension to this concept, very often
   these interpretations are not found explicitly in the text, but are
   hidden or subtly implied.

   Several examples of this phenomenon can be found in Genesis alone. In
   Parashat Vayetze, an explicit interpretation for the name Machanaim is
   found in the text: ?"?"~This is God?'s camp (machaneh).?' So he named
   that place Machanaim?" (Genesis 32:3). But there is also a hidden
   interpretation for the name, hinted at multiple times throughout
   the narrative: ?"He divided the people?"? into two camps?" (32:8);
   ?"If Esau comes to the one camp and attacks it, the other camp may
   yet escape?" (32:9); ?"and now I have become two camps?" (32:11).[5]

   Another similar example is the name Penuel. The Torah says, ?"So Jacob
   named the place Peniel, meaning, ?"~I have seen a divine being face
   to face (panim el panim)?'?" (Genesis 32:31). But less explicitly,
   the word panim and its linguistic relatives appear countless times
   in the narrative ? -- ?"Go on ahead (lefanai)?' (32:17); ?"?"~If I
   propitiate him (akhapera panav) with presents in advance (lefanai),
   and then face him (er?'eh panav), perhaps he will show me favor (yisa
   panai).?' And so the gift went on ahead (al panav)?"??" (32:21-22);
   ?"For to see your face (panekha) is like seeing the face of God
   (penei Elohim), and you have received me favorably?" (33:10).

   In other instances, there exists only implicit interpretation. For
   example, after Jacob crosses the ford of the Jabbok, we immediately
   read that ?"a man wrestled (va-ye?'avek) with him until the break
   of dawn?" (Genesis 32:25). Tellingly, this is the only place in the
   Tanakh that the verb va-ye?'avek (which is very similar to the name
   Jabbok) appears. In the course of Jacob?'s exploits in Laban?'s house,
   we read that ?"Jacob then got fresh shoots of poplar (livneh), and of
   almond and plane, and peeled white (levanot) stripes in them, laying
   bare the white (ha-lavan) of the shoots?' (30:37). Even the shoots
   of almond mentioned in that verse ? -- luz in Hebrew, another word
   that appears nowhere else in Tanakh in this context ? -- is perhaps a
   reference to Bethel, formerly known as Luz (28:19), where Jacob visited
   prior to arriving in Haran. Finally, when Jacob departs from Laban?'s
   house, we find a hint of his impending meeting with Esau in Laban?'s
   accusation: ?"It was a foolish thing for you to do (aso)?" (31:28).

   The Importance of Names and Their Connection to Events

   It is clear that the Torah considers the interpretations given for
   names extremely significant. In a sense, these interpretations serve
   to establish the true essence of the people and places that bear the
   corresponding names, not unlike a blessing or a curse. Names and
   their interpretations are not always mere ancillary elements in a
   story, but can often propel the plot forward, giving it the proper
   narrative emphases.

   For example, the word tzechok ? -- laughter ? -- is not only the
   linguistic root given for Isaac?'s name, but it is also a motif
   that runs through his entire life. Before Isaac was born, his father
   Abraham laughed in joy, while his mother Sarah laughed derisively,
   leading to her being reprimanded. When he was born, his mother said,
   ?"God has brought me laughter; everyone who hears will laugh with me?"
   (Genesis 21:6). Sarah witnessed Isaac?'s rival Ishmael ?"playing
   (metzachek)?" (21:9), and years later, Abimelech witnessed Isaac
   ?"fondling (metzachek) his wife Rebekah?" (26:8). The verse
   purposely leaves vague the exact nature of Ishmael and Isaac?'s
   actions; the important message from the Torah?'s perspective is the
   disproportionate use of the linguistic root that can be found within
   the name of the protagonist.

   It is unclear if the Torah would have found it necessary to mention the
   exact nature of the food with which Jacob purchased the birthright
   from his brother in Parashat Toledot, if not for the linguistic
   connection to Esau: ?"?"~Give me some of that red stuff (adom) to
   gulp down?'?"? which is why he was called Edom?" (Genesis 25:30). Once
   again, in addition to this explicit interpretation of the name Edom,
   we find another hidden connection: ?"Red (admoni), like a hairy mantle
   (ke-aderet sei?'ar) all over?" (25:25), which clearly hints at the
   land of Edom and Mount Seir.[6]

   Shelah and Chezib

   Let us now return to Parashat Vayeshev, and the verse, ?"[She]
   named him Shela; he was at Chezib when she bore him?" (Genesis
   38:5). The style in which the verse is written suggests that it
   is an interpretation of Shela?'s name, but there is seemingly no
   connection between Shela, son of Judah, and the place called Chezib.
   A solution to this problem can be found in an early commentary on
   the book of Chronicles ascribed by the Tosafists to ?"a student of
   Rav Saadia Gaon?" (Yoma 9a). This answer is cited in the Da?'at Mikra
   commentary on I Chronicles 2:3, and the Ramban suggests the same idea
   in his own commentary. The answer is that this is a case where the
   interpretation of the name is hidden within a synonym. This kind of
   interpretation can only be appreciated by individuals who possess a
   deep understanding of the Hebrew language.

   In the book of Kings, Elisha promises the Shunammite woman that
   ?"At this season next year, you will be embracing a son.?' She
   responds, ?"Please, my lord, man of God, do not delude (tekhazev) your
   maidservant?" (II Kings 4:16). When her son dies, his mother runs back
   to Elisha, accusing, ?"Did I ask my lord for a son? Didn?'t I say,
   ?"~Don?'t mislead (tashleh) me?'??" (4:28). This episode teaches us
   that in Hebrew, the words tekhazev and tashleh are synonymous, since
   the Shunammite woman is actually quoting her own earlier statement
   in verse 28, where she substitutes tashleh for tekhazev. In light of
   this, the implied linguistic connection in our parasha between Shela
   and Chezib suddenly makes perfect sense.

   There may have been an additional connection between Shela and
   Chezib, relating to the meaning of the word akhzav: Shela?'s life was
   characterized by disappointment. In Tanakh, the verb lekhazev and the
   expression akhzav are used to describe things that disappoint, that do
   not realize the potential that is associated with them. Some examples
   include: ?"Like a spring whose waters do not fail (yekhazevu)?" (Isaiah
   58:11); ?"You have been to me like a spring that fails (akhzav), like
   waters that cannot be relied on?" (Jeremiah 15:18); ?"See, any hope
   [of capturing him] must be disappointed (nikhzava)?" (Job 41:1);
   and ?"All men are false (kozev)?" (Psalms 115:11). In the story of
   Judah and Tamar, it had been expected that Tamar would marry Shela,
   but Judah was afraid to proceed with the match, ?"for he thought,
   ?"~He too might die like his brothers?'?" (Genesis 38:11). Thus,
   Shela was indeed a disappointment, and the name Chezib hints at this
   disappointment that would later be the hallmark of Shela?'s life. Once
   we accept this explanation, whether the birth took place in Chezib or
   whether Shela?'s father was in Chezib at the time matters little ? --
   either way, the connection to Chezib and the theme of disappointment
   is conveyed.

   Name Interpretation through Synonyms in Other Texts

   The notion of interpreting the meaning of a name through the use of
   a synonym is found in other sources as well. Yair Zakovitch wrote on
   this topic, citing several examples, some of which are more convincing
   than others. The following is a very compelling example brought by
   Zakovitch in his article.

   In Judges 15, we read the story of Samson at ?"the cave of the rock
   of Etam,?" where the men of Judah handed him over to the Philistines:

   When he reached Lehi, the Philistines came shouting to meet him.
   Thereupon the spirit of the Lord gripped him, and the ropes on his
   arms became like flax that catches fire?"? He came upon a fresh
   jawbone (lechi) of an ass and he picked it up; and with it he killed
   a thousand men. Then Samson said: ?"With the jaw of an ass, mass
   upon mass! With the jaw of an ass I have slain a thousand men.?'
   As he finished speaking, he threw the jawbone away; hence that place
   was called Ramath-lehi. (Judges 15:14-17)

   The level of detail in the final verse of this passage is curious. Why
   do we need to know that Samson discarded the jawbone at the conclusion
   of his declaration? Would we have thought otherwise that the jawbone
   remained in his hand until today? It is obvious that he threw the
   jawbone away, and to state explicitly that he did so seems superfluous.

   Furthermore, the very use of the word lechi to refer to a jawbone is
   slightly odd. The word lechi generally refers to the cheek and not
   to the jaw itself, even in biblical Hebrew.[7] It may be that if the
   incident with Samson and the Philistines had not taken place in Lehi, a
   different word may have been preferred over lechi in this context. The
   location may have been named Lehi because of a raised plateau (rama)
   whose topographical form resembled a person?'s cheek.[8] Since the
   incident occurred in a place called Lehi or Ramath-lehi, the author
   of Judges chose the word lechi specifically.

   But how can we explain the verse, ?"he threw the jawbone
   away?"? Zakowitz answers, convincingly, that the full name of the
   location was Ramath-lehi. The Hebrew word rama means ?"plateau?'
   here, but taken as a verb, it can also mean ?"threw away,?" as in
   the verse, ?"Horse and driver He has hurled (rama) into the sea?"
   (Exodus 15:1). The word has a similar meaning in its Aramaic and Arabic
   cognates. For the sole purpose of interpreting the name Ramath-lehi,
   the book of Judges added this seemingly superfluous detail of Samson
   throwing away the jawbone: ?"As he finished speaking, he threw the
   jawbone away; hence that place was called Ramath-lehi?' (Judges 15:17).

   With this in mind, let us return to Parashat Vayeshev to analyze an
   additional name. The city of Dothan (or Dothain) is mentioned only
   twice in all of Tanakh, once in the story of Joseph and his brothers
   (Genesis 37) and a second time in the time of Elisha (II Kings 6). The
   name Dothan appears to derive from the word dut and the suffix -an
   or -ain. What is the meaning of the word dut? In the Hebrew of the
   Tannaitic period, the word dut often accompanies the word bor,[9]
   in connection to different types of storage in one?'s house. What is
   the difference between a bor and a dut? The Talmud states: ?"Both bor
   and dut are excavations in the soil, only a bor is merely dug out,
   whereas a dut is faced with stone?" (Bava Batra 64a). The Rashbam
   explains: ?"Dug out ? -- in hard soil?"? Faced with stone ? -- they
   dig a well in soft dirt, and then build a stone wall within it; this
   is called a dut.?" The word dut exists in Akkadian as well (d?tu). The
   Proto-Semitic form of the word was apparently *dawt, and it is likely,
   as we stated above, that the name Dothan was derived from this form.

   It is reasonable to ask why the Torah mentioned Dothan in the story
   of the sale of Joseph. The detail that the brothers were in Dothan
   at the time is not necessary for the story, and there is no further
   mention of Dothan in the narrative. Considering all that we have
   discussed above, it may be that the Torah mentioned Dothan in this
   context in order to hint at the role of the location in the story ? --
   it is home to the pit (bor) into which the brothers threw Joseph.[10]

   Translated by Daniel Landman
   [5] It is noteworthy that, in this case, the hidden interpretation of
   the name has two advantages that the explicit interpretation lacks:
   a) In the explicit explanation ? -- ?"this is God's camp?" ? -- the
   word ?"camp?" is metaphorical, while in the hidden interpretation it
   refers to a real camp; b) the hidden interpretation explains well not
   only the name itself, but also its dual ending -ayim (machanayim) --
   ostensibly meaning ?"two camps.?" For more on the dual-like suffixes
   of place names, and in particular the case of Machanaim, see the
   discussion in my Ancient Place Names, referred to in the bibliography.

   [6] Also compare ?"But my brother Esau is a hairy man and I am smooth
   skinned (chalak)?" (Genesis 27:11) to the description of the southern
   border of the land of Israel, which it shares with the land of Edom:
   ?"Mount Chalak, which ascends to Seir?" (Joshua 11:17).

   [7] The word for jawbone in rabbinic and modern Hebrew is leset.

   [8] See our discussion on Parashat Bamidbar.

   [9] The phrase bor va-dut appears five times throughout the Babylonian
   version of the Mishna, and it appears in the Tosefta as well. Other
   versions of the Mishna read instead bor ve-chadut and the Yerushalmi
   reads harut. See my articles devoted to this topic in the bibliography
   at the end of this chapter.

   [10] At this point, I would like to thank my close friend Prof.
   Yochanan Breuer; this last idea took shape as a result of a
   conversation with him.

Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 18:33:44 -0500
Re: [Avodah] "Bein Adam le-Havrutato? Arguments and Insults

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 04:42:10AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: Sam Dratch, a sophomore at YU and son of R. Marc Dratch, published an
: article in the latest edition of the student newspaper Kol HaMevaser,
: "Bein Adam le-Havrutato? Arguments and Insults in Halakhic Literature."

I think the analysis is flawed because it analyzes the speaker while
leaving the subject of the comment alone.

There are different social norms. When another O co-worker and I disagree
over how to design some program, our arguments slide into patterns we
learned from chavrusos. Other co workers used to wonder if we were angry
at eachother, and why we fought so often. It took a moment to realize
why -- because to neither of us did any of that heated exchange sound
like anger. It's a different social context than our non-Jewish and
non-O co workers are used to.

Similarly, if both the writer and the subject know the comment comes
from a place of passion about the Torah, so that neither of them hear
a personal insult in any of it, was there any "insult" actually being

If you want to talk about the Gra and Chassidus, or RYE vs RYE on
Sabbateanism, so tat one side is in real fear of what the other side
could do to the future of Judaism, that's a different discussion. And
not the focus of the article.

Tir'u baTov!

Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:29:55 -0500
Re: [Avodah] yeshosha ben gamla

On Sat, Dec 06, 2014 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: A recent day yomi states that Marta bat Baytus paid money to the king
: Yannai to appoint Yehoshua ben Gamla as high priest, I dont understand the
: gemara as it well known (both from other gemarot and historical sources)
: that the Chashmanoim kings including Yannai were the high priests (which
: was a political position in addition to a religious position).
: The commentaries already not that Yeshoshua ben Gamla was known for his
: takkanot which seems to contradict the fact that the position was obtained
: through bribery (see Bach CM 8 for implications).Tosaphot claims there were
: 2 high priests with the same name.

I fail to see the problem:

1- If Marta bat Baytus bought the right man the kehunah gedolah, does
that taint him if he accepts?

2- Why would it taint anyone, even if her were part of the conspiracy?
Wouldn't getting an appropriate kohein gadol be an appropriate reason
for paying the Romans their bakshish?

Tir'u baTov!


Avodah mailing list



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

< Previous Next >