Volume 33: Number 37
Sun, 08 Mar 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 00:09:28 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Question on the Megilla
This occured to me tonight (Shushan Purim):
If "All the king's servants, and the people of the king's provinces, do
know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into
the inner court, who is not called, there is one law for him, that he be
put to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden
sceptre, that he may live" (Esther 4:11), how does Haman just waltz into
Ahasuerus and say "'There is a certain people scattered abroad and
dispersed among the people" etc. etc? (3:8) without any formalities with
the golden sceptre?
I realise that you could say that Haman had a special status me`al kol
hasarim etc. etc, but it seems a bit weak when Esther explicitly says "kol
ish ve'isha"; or you could say that the Megilla omits the details that it
doesn't need for that moment in the narrative, but even after the
"eucatastrophe" (Greek for "nahafoch hu") and Haman's downfall. in 8:4, it
takes the trouble to tell us that Esther stlll needs the golden sceptre to
talk to Ahasuerus, so why doesn't Haman need it before?
Is there a better answer?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150306/c11db07d/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 22:46:50 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] yuhara
Is there a philosophical or practical halachic difference between the
concepts of yuhara (halachic presumptuousness?) and mechzei k?yuhara (looks
like halachic presumptuousness)? Consider the following case ? an
individual has rabbinic ordination but has moved to a community where no
one is aware of it and he does not tell anyone. On Simchat Torah the gabbai
asks all Rabbis to come up for an aliyah and he comes up. Is it yuhara?
mechzei kyuhara? [Is yuhara a din in the observer or observee?]
kol tuv
joel richTHIS 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.
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 03:22:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Question on the Megilla
R' Simon Montagu asked:
> If "All the king's servants, and the people of the king's provinces,
> do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the
> king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law for
> him, that he be put to death, except such to whom the king shall
> hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live" (Esther 4:11), how
> does Haman just waltz into Ahasuerus and say "'There is a certain
> people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people" etc. etc?
> (3:8) without any formalities with the golden sceptre?
I don't see any evidence that Haman just "waltzed" in and spoke to
Achashverosh out of the blue. I also concede that there's no evidence that
he had made an appointment earlier. My point is simply that we don't know
one way or another, and therefore it is reasonable to presume that this
occurred either during a regularly scheduled meeting, or perhaps the king
summoned Haman for some other purpose, and then as long as he had the
king's attention, Haman raised this other matter.
Esther is a whole 'nother story. Personally, I am surprised that the king
would let 30 days go by without seeing his beloved and adorable queen, but
that was in fact the case, and the Megilah goes out of it's way to tell us
so. In fact, this was an important point in the difference of opinion
between Esther and Mordechai: Esther felt that she would be called in the
near future, and Mordechai felt that immediate action was critical. Without
knowing these two facts (Esther's expectations, and the law about going to
the king) we would think that Esther was procrastinating needlessly.
As far as we are told, Haman was *not* an exception to the law about
unannounced approaches to the king. We must presume that his comments were
made without violating that rule. But they could have been made any time.
It's not relevant to the story, at least not as relevant as the timing of
Esther's approach.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How Old Men Tighten Skin
63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f91db8814ae1db807a1st01vuc
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 23:49:19 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Question on the Megilla
On 03/05/2015 05:09 PM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> This occured to me tonight (Shushan Purim):
>
> how does Haman just waltz into Ahasuerus and say "'There is a certain
> people scattered abroad and dispersed among the people" etc. etc? (3:8)
> without any formalities with the golden sceptre?
1. The rule specified, of course, anyone who showed up without being summoned.
In Haman's official role as a minister he presumably had a permanent summons
to Court; on the contrary, it might be death for him *not* to show up without
having first obtained permission.
2. If this is not so, then presumably he made an appointment in the usual
fashion. The megillah wouldn't bother telling us details like that.
Note that when he shows up in the middle of the night he doesn't barge in;
he is invited in.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:14:00 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 06:04:11PM -0400, via Avodah wrote:
: Ashkenazim are clearly and objectively wrong, not only -- as pointed
: out by the original poster, quoted above -- when they pronounce
: "shabbath" with the stress on the penultimate syllable, or when they
: pronounce "emmeth" with the stress on the nonexistent penultimate
: syllable, since we have a clear and undisputed tradition...
1- The Baalei Mesorah in Teveryah were overwhelmingly Qaraite. Their
findings have value as would any other intellectual analysis. But it's
not quite Torah sheBe'al Peh.
And in particular, we know that Bavel had a very different system of
niqud and trop than EY or Teveriah. So, given questions about the origins
of Ashkenazi minhag, maybe we're not so much doing things "objectively
wrong" as much as simply different.
2- There were 12 shevatim that we know even back in the days of seifer
Shofetim had different mesoros how to pronounce Hebrew. So the notion
that there is even one right answer we are all approximating is something
I would not take for granted.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 15:16:56 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 09:55:07PM +0200, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
: I don't see how that follows. The Hittim were also B'nei Ham, but the
: Hittite language is Indo-European. Romanians are Slavs, but speak a Romance
: language.
Language similarity is driven more by a need to cross-communicate than
ancestry. So, it's more a matter of geography than descent.
Such as the similarity between Leshon haQodesh and the language of
Kenaanim, which is even closer than the similarity between LhQ and
Aramaic.
The Kenaanim needed to do business with Avraham, the family back home
didnt.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 20:51:51 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
Not challenging, just asking...
R' Micha Berger wrote:
> 1- The Baalei Mesorah in Teveryah were overwhelmingly Qaraite.
> Their findings have value as would any other intellectual
> analysis. But it's not quite Torah sheBe'al Peh.
I'm extremely confused by the value judgments and value assignments here.
It's been my experience that the teachings of the Baalei Mesorah are
considered just as unimpeachable as the teachings of the Gemara. In
contrast, I would think that the findings of a Karaite or a professor from
Harvard or Oxford are at most "interestesting"; to call it "not quite Torah
sheBe'al Peh" seems almost heretical.
Could it be that I'm referring to *our* Baalei Mesorah, and that the "Baalei Mesorah in Teveryah" were a different group? If so, where were ours from?
> And in particular, we know that Bavel had a very different system
> of niqud and trop than EY or Teveriah.
Whenever I see things like this (and the Gemara in Megillah about writing
Megilas Esther in another language is a great example) I'm never sure
whether the author is referring to different sounds to represent the same
words/ideas, or to different systems of putting the same sounds on paper.
> 2- There were 12 shevatim that we know even back in the days of
> seifer Shofetim had different mesoros how to pronounce Hebrew.
> So the notion that there is even one right answer we are all
> approximating is something I would not take for granted.
Are you referring to the lack of an "sh" sound in some shevatim? I always
thought that was an inability of pronunciation, similar to modern Russians
who have trouble with the English "h", or westerners who have trouble with
the "ayin". Are you saying that they actually had a *mesorah* that the sin
and shin are the same? (Or, to forestall RJS's comments, that the sin and
shin were so similar in these shevatim, and so different in those shevatim,
so much so that everyone could who was a local and who was a foreigner.)
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Man, 63, Avoids Wrinkles
63 Yr Old Man Shares Simple DIY Skin Tightening Method He Uses At Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54fa138718bef13864953st01vuc
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:36:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On 03/06/2015 03:16 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Such as the similarity between Leshon haQodesh and the language of
> Kenaanim, which is even closer than the similarity between LhQ and
> Aramaic.
Again you assert this for no apparent reason but that the archaeologists
say so, and they say so because they deny that the Kenaanim were ever
conquered or replaced.
> The Kenaanim needed to do business with Avraham, the family back home
> didnt.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Kenaani language changed to adapt
to doing business with *one foreign family*?! This seems absurd. If
anything, Avraham's need to do business with the Kenaanim would have
made him learn Kenaani, and thus obviate any need of theirs to learn LhQ.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:08:02 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 03:36:30PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >Such as the similarity between Leshon haQodesh and the language of
: >Kenaanim, which is even closer than the similarity between LhQ and
: >Aramaic.
: Again you assert this for no apparent reason but that the archaeologists
: say so, and they say so because they deny that the Kenaanim were ever
: conquered or replaced.
Have you seen Phoenician or the language of Carthage ("Karta
Chadasha")? Carthage was settled as a Phoenician colony around the
time of Shimon b Shetach. "Phoenicians", is just a Greek term for the
sea-faring Kenaanim of the coastal cities. (Named for the availability
of murex and royal purple in the area.) There is direct knowledge that
the Kenaanim spoke a language closer to LhQ than either are to Aramaic.
:> The Kenaanim needed to do business with Avraham, the family back home
:> didnt.
: Are you seriously suggesting that the Kenaani language changed to adapt
: to doing business with *one foreign family*?! ...
Look at the historical sequencing. How old was any language at this
point in history? Kenaani and most languages were still congealing at
this point. I do not know the rules of linguistics in Avraham's day,
beyond saying that they weren't the usual ones. They didn't need to
learn how to talk to Avraham, they needed an excuse not to forget
language elements from before Shinnar / Bavel.
There was also the need to talk to Malki-Tzedeq and perhaps also Sheim,
Ever, and whichever of Ever's children didn't go native. After all,
the language got its name from Ever, not Avram.
But in any case, at least one Kenaani language and its descendent are
known well, there is no reason to conjecture how Hebrew-like it is.
Gut Voch!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:32:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Origins and Nature of Derashos
R' Akiva Miler wrote:
"I don't see how that is helpful in any way. It seems to suggest that Ezra
invented the tagin. If so, the drashos on them would carry no more weight
than anything else that Ezra said or wrote. (Which is certainly something
that R' Akiva would want to learn, but I don't know how impressed or amazed
Moshe Rabenu would be over it.)"
R' Yosi, who holds that the ksav changed, learns it out from a pasuk, in
other words the torah said that the ksav would change later. Ezra got
b'nevua that the Torah should be written in Ksav Ashuri, so Ezra didn't
invent anything, he was fulfilling a din in the Torah based on a Nevua (the
Rishonim at the beginning of Megial deal with the question of ayn navi
rashai lechadesh davar).
Additionally, the Brisker Rav claims that Ksav Ahuri was known and that
Moshe wrote the Torah in ksav ashuri as part of the 70 torahs that he wrote
on the rocks. Therefore, the tag in were not a chidush at all. What changed
was the halacha as to what ksav was to be used for seforim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/1491153e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:50:15 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Pshat and Drash
R' Yaakov Schachter wrote:
"It's not so simple. Even if you are right, and I think that you
probably are, it's not so simple. This has been discussed on Avodah
before, see v26n90 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n088.shtml#12)."
The variations of the word shin chaf beis, are used all over Chumash to
mean sleep with in an intimate fashion (for example a little earlier in
Vayishlach the Torah says "nevala asa b'yisrael LISHKAV es bas Yaakov,
which clearly means slept with intimately). To suggest that here the pashut
pshat means something else is quite farfetched IMHO. Additionally the
targum translates/says pshat that he slept with Bilha (v'azal Reuven
u'shchiv yas bilha).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/7d1a42b3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 11:58:34 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Peshat and Drash (Was: Re: Meshech Chochmah on
R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 10:32:43PM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> :... the Dor Revii says that it could be that at one time in history the
> : Chachamim understood the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin literally and only
later
> : did Chazal darshen that it is money.
"The Rambam vociferously denies this possibility. "
In the Mishneh Torah yes, but in the Moreh Nevuchim the Rambam says that
this is the pshat in the pasuk, He writes (Moreh Nevuchim 3:41):
"mi shechiser ever yechusar ever k'moso ... al taasik machshavtcha bazeh
shanu onshin tashlumim ki matarasi lases taamim lakesuvim v'lo lases taamim
l'halacha.
"Someone who cut off someones limb limb his limb will be cut off ... don't
think we are talking about a punishment of payment because my goal is to
explain what is written not the halacha."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150308/0e4231fc/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 08:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Origins and Nature of Derashos
On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 11:32:21AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: R' Akiva Miler wrote:
:> I don't see how that is helpful in any way. It seems to suggest that Ezra
:> invented the tagin. If so, the drashos on them would carry no more weight
:> than anything else that Ezra said or wrote....
: R' Yosi, who holds that the ksav changed, learns it out from a pasuk, in
: other words the torah said that the ksav would change later. Ezra got
: b'nevua that the Torah should be written in Ksav Ashuri, so Ezra didn't
: invent anything, he was fulfilling a din in the Torah based on a Nevua...
As I wrote in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/holy-script-speech , many rishonim
take the gemara
as having a decided conclusion. It also touches on our discussion
of the differences between the two sets of luchos:
3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final
opinion. The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim
to decide that this is the gemara's conclusion. The script was
always used in sacred texts. Rather, it was only popularized for
other writing in Ezra's day.
About a question raised earlier in the blog post, the Bavli's mem
vesamech shebeluchos beneis hayu omedim (describing ashuris) vs the
Y-mi's ayin vetes:
The Ridvaz (Rabbi Yaakov Dovid Wilovsky; Rosh Yeshiva of Slutzk;
b. Kobrin, Russia 1845 -- d. Tzefas 1913), in his commentary on
the Yerushalmi, suggests that there is no dispute between the two
talmuds on this point. The first luchos were in Ashuris, and after
the loss of holiness caused by the Golden Calf, the second pair
were given in kesav Ivris. The Bavli cited a quote about the former,
the Yerushalmi, about the latter.
The Ridvaz's resolution would lead to the state described by Rav
Shim'on ben Elazaer et al as well. It would mean that the sacred
Ashuris was known to only a few. Only Moshe saw the first tablets
unbroken -- possibly Yehoshua caught a glimpse. But the masses were
given the second set, the one in Ivris.
It would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin
is discussing how it was given to the masses, to "Yisrael" as a whole
rather than only the intelligentsia. If understood this way, then the
reference to Aramaic is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
Aramaic and not Lashon haQodesh, were given a targum. However, no one
proposed changing the language of the text itself. (What would happen
to derashos, the derivation of halakhah through textual analysis,
if that really were the proposal?)
Last, it would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing
on the wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!
In any case, it would appear that the majority opinion of amora'im and
rishonim presume the script did not so much change as come out of hiding.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 10:58:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
R' Zev Sero wrote:
"All I'm saying is that they
were carved out of the same stuff, and inscribed by the same Hand, with
the same text. This is *certainly* what the chumash says, and the only
possible pshat; our dispute, which started with a plain assertion (including
misquoted pesukim) that this was not true, has moved into whether there are
perhaps midroshim that say otherwise, and whether we can take them at face
value."
The meforshim on the Medrash Raba that I quoted point out that the pasuk in
Devarim states explicitly that Moshe wrote the Luchos.
(Devarim 10:1-2) "Ba'eis hahu amar hashem eilay p'sol lecha shnei luchos
... vaechtov al haluchos es hadeverim"
Moshe describes how Hashem commanded him to create the second luchos and
then Moshe says "I wrote on the luchos (vaechtov)".
On the other hand the pasuk in Shemos says that Hashem wrote the luchos.
The meforshim explain that the medrash came to answer the contradiction,
really Moshe wrote the luchos like it says in Devarim and Hashem helped
which is the pasuk in Shemos.
The Netziv in Haamek Davar, states explicitly that the first luchos had the
text written in Yisro and the additional text from Vaeschanan was Torah She
Baal Peh, and then the second luchos included the additions from
Vaeschanan, and were therefore in some respects greater.
R"n Katz asked:
> Please remind me who was the Dor Revii? Anyway if you are quoting him
> correctly, it is very difficult to understand this. What happened to the idea
> that the Torah shebe'al peh was given together with the Torah shebichsav,
> and the latter cannot be understood without the former?
...
> So, not to forget the question we started with, how could the Dor Revii say
> that the pasuk of ayin tachas ayin was originally taken literally, and
> only later did Chazal change it?! If he really did say that.
This goes back to a very fundamental question, what did Moshe get at Har
Sinai. R' Micha Berger wrote the following a while back:
RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on
plurality in halakhah:
1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information.
He finds this opinion to be typical of many ge'onim and the Seifer
haQabbalah, and is based on statements like "Why were there so
many debates between the schools of Hillel and Shammai [when there
were so few between the mentors themselves? Because they did not
properly serve their rabbis." Implied is that much was forgotten
because of this lack of connection to the previous generation.
2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among
others. It comes from sources like Rabbi Aqiva's "finding mounds
and mounds of laws in the crowns atop the letters".
3- Constitutive: The poseiq (halachic decisor) doesn't discover
what's correct halakhah. Rather, part of the definition of
"correct" is the poseiq's say-so; Hashem gave them the power to
decide and define law. This is the position of the Ramban, the
Ritva and the Ran. A typical source: In order to make sanhedrin
you needed to be able to find 49 arguments that something is
tamei, and 49 that the same something is tahor. G-d gave us all
98 arguments, and empowered the rabbinate to decide which is law."
The Dor Revii is going with #2 above like the Rambam that not everything
was given to Moshe Rabenu at Har Sinai and the Chachamim of every dor have
the right to darshen the pesukim as they see fit. Therefore he posits
that it is possible that there was a time that the chachamim darshened
ayin tachas ayin literally and a later Beis Din came and changed the psak.
R' Micha Berger just explained who the Dor Revii was, here are his words
again:
"Who is the Dor Revii?" The "Dor Shevi'i" as I would call R' Dovid
Glasner, was one of the founding members of Avodah. And as an active
advocate of his famous great-grandfather's Torah, the D4's was a
frequently-discussed shitah.
R' Moshe Shmuel Glasner, the Dor Revi'i:
English wiki (more contant): http://j.mp/1EaHkC0
Hebrew wiki (better links): http://j.mp/1wEit8Z"
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2015 08:25:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 03/08/2015 04:58 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>
> The meforshim on the Medrash Raba that I quoted point out that the
> pasuk in Devarim states explicitly that Moshe wrote the Luchos.
> (Devarim 10:1-2) "Ba'eis hahu amar hashem eilay p'sol lecha shnei
> luchos ... vaechtov al haluchos es hadeverim"
>
> Moshe describes how Hashem commanded him to create the second luchos
> and then Moshe says "I wrote on the luchos (vaechtov)".
He certainly does not! Where on earth are you getting this from?
If you have a chumash that says this, you have discovered our version
of the Wicked Bible, and you must burn it!
> On the other hand the pasuk in Shemos says that Hashem wrote the luchos.
No, it doesn't. One pasuk in Shemos says clearly that Hashem promises to
write the luchos, and the second, in which someone writes them, is ambiguous
when taken by itself; in the context of the three other pesukim (one earlier
in the same chapter, and two in Devarim) the ambiguity disappears. Anyone
who has just read pasuk 1 is not even conscious of the ambiguity in pasuk 28,
because he already knows whom to expect to do it. In all my years of reading
pasuk 28 I never even noticed the ambiguity until RMB pointed it out.
There is *no* pasuk, anywhere in the Torah, that actually says Moshe wrote.
> The meforshim explain that the medrash came to answer the
> contradiction, really Moshe wrote the luchos like it says in Devarim
> and Hashem helped which is the pasuk in Shemos.
Since you misquoted the pasuk (actually two pesukim) in Devarim, it's not
possible that these unnamed meforshim say anything like this, and I am
not going to take your word for it. Everyone should be on notice that
anything you quote, just like anything RMB quotes, must not be taken for
granted and must be checked.
> The Netziv in Haamek Davar, states explicitly that the first luchos
> had the text written in Yisro and the additional text from Vaeschanan
> was Torah She Baal Peh, and then the second luchos included the
> additions from Vaeschanan, and were therefore in some respects
> greater.
So what does he do with the Torah's explicit statement that the second
luchos were "kamichtav harishon"? In any case, surely you are aware
that Haamek Davar is not universally regarded as an authority whose words
must be taken into account.
--
Zev Sero I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
I have a right to kill him without asking questions
-- John Adams
Go to top.
Message: 16
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2015 08:49:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:32:27AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Zev, where do you think that Avraham learned Lashon Hakodesh
: from? Was it a masorah from Adam HaRishon that he learned from Shem and
: Ever? Or did he get it by nevuah? I'm not arguing with you, I'm just
: looking for details of your viewpoint.
I recently mentioned the first Medrash Rabba on Yonah. Ashur received
two things as reward for not participating in Migdal Bavel: the holy
script, and having Yonah sent to his decendents' capital city, giving
them a second chance.
Avram received one reward, he never lost Leshon haQodesh in speech.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507 and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
------------------------------
**************************************
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..."
A list of common acronyms is available at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)