Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 42

Thu, 12 Mar 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 14:33:11 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Language and Ayin Tachat


On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:41:09PM +0000, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote:
: I was some what reluctant to chime in but now that the threads are
: running thin I'll point out Ramban to bereishit 45:12-- ... leshon
: haqodesh ki al daati hu sefat kenaan-- the holy language is just plain
common Canaanite.

... and that Avraham learned Armatic in Ur Kasdim.
Ramban at <http://j.mp/1Ms3YXH> on he.wikisource.org.))

: Next i'll point out rambam begins part 3, ch 41 of Moreh Nevuchim by
: noting the torah says if one has injured another's body--- as he maimed
: another so it shall be done to him. -- if he injured a limb in the body,
: he shall be injured in his body-- he adds "don't try to figure out the
: fact we punish these by fines"-- --- "I have an opinion concerning
: Talmudic pronouncements (fiqh) which can only be expressed by word
: of mouth."---

: So since we cannot ask him to explain matters we can only guess what
: he would say (after looking over his shoulder).--- but clearly its not
: a drasha for him.

Lehefech, I would say clearly it is. As RMBluke already noted, the
Rambam there says "ki matarasi laseis taamim lakesuvim velo laseis taamim
lahalakhah -- don't think we are talking about a punishment of payment
because my goal is to explain what is written not the halakhah."

When you distinguish "kesuvim" from how the pasuq is understood
"lehalakhah", one is talking about derashah, no?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:17:07 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Language and Ayin Tachat


 

In Islam, Sharia is A-llah's law, fiqh is human understanding and
interpretation of that law. A poseiq is a faqih (pl. fuqaha) and a pesaq
is a fatwa. So you may be right that fiqh refers to process. But then,
so may "halakhah". 

As for checking el-Qafih (hamechuneh "Kapach" --
but there is no /p/ sound in Arabic, so that's obviously wrong)... He
renders fiqh as "TSBP". Quoting
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/c13-2.htm [4] 

> ??? ????? ??
??????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????, ?? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??
???? ????? ????? ???? ??, ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? [???] ???
??

Schwartz http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_3_41.htm [5]


> ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????????, ?? ????? ????? ???
????? ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????, ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????
????? ???-??.

On 2015-03-11 3:00 pm, Herbert Basser wrote:


Links:
------
[1] http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0145.htm#12
[2]
http://j.mp/1Ms3YXH
[3] http://www.aishdas.org
[4]
http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/mahshevt/more/c13-2.htm
[5]
http://press.tau.ac.il/perplexed/chapters/chap_3_41.htm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150311/85341545/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Rosenfeld, Stephen H.
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:09:06 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Ayin tachas ayin-pshat


See Sforno,Ibn Ezra,and the excellent discussion in Rabbi Cooperman's "Pshuto shel Mikrah".
Stephen Rosenfeld


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Herbert Basser
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 19:00:06 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Language and Ayin Tachat


From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Sent: March 11, 2015 2:33 PM

> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 05:41:09PM +0000, Herbert Basser via Avodah wrote:
>: Next i'll point out rambam begins part 3, ch 41 of Moreh Nevuchim by
>: noting the torah says if one has injured another's body--- as he maimed
>: another so it shall be done to him. -- if he injured a limb in the body,
>: he shall be injured in his body-- he adds "don't try to figure out the
>: fact we punish these by fines"-- --- "I have an opinion concerning
>: Talmudic pronouncements (fiqh) which can only be expressed by word
>: of mouth."---

>: So since we cannot ask him to explain matters we can only guess what
>: he would say (after looking over his shoulder).--- but clearly its not
>: a drasha for him.

> Lehefech, I would say clearly it is. As RMBluke already noted, the
> Rambam there says "ki matarasi laseis taamim lakesuvim velo laseis taamim
> lahalakhah -- don't think we are talking about a punishment of payment
> because my goal is to explain what is written not the halakhah."

> When you distinguish "kesuvim" from how the pasuq is understood
> "lehalakhah", one is talking about derashah, no?

so then fiqh = halacha, I'd have to check kafach on his take but I take
it as hazal's methods which he clearly says he wont deal with here. But
be that it as it may -- the kicker for me is that he says he will not
write his opinion -- clearly something he wont discuss in writing--
I doubt he means a drasha -- can a derasha be oker clear pshat for him
(and he tells you clear peshat). I rather suspect he means that batei
din have ignored the law at some point and substituted a more humane
practice -- but that's just a guess since he kept his secret -- secret.

Len Goodman has produced a new translation (maybe not out yet) and
we'll have to wait to see his understanding of fiqh -- seems to me he
always uses it to mean hazal's methods rather than outcome (halakha) --
the muslims use it as the science of adjudication.

Zvi.



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 21:48:32 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin


R"n Katz wrote:
"That is no chiddush, /everyone/ translates the pasuk literally. The
translation is understood to mean "[the value of] an eye for an eye, [the
value
of] of a tooth for a tooth."  And it has /always/ been understood that way,
since Sinai.  Had you met Onkelos in the street and asked him, "What did
you mean by that?" he would have explained it to you the way I just did."

You would be right if the Targum always gave a literal translation.
However, Targum Onkelus is not just a translation, it is more then that, he
gives pshat in the words based on the translation. If the pshat was money
then he should have said money.

Here is an example where the Targum does NOT translate the words literally.
The pasuk in Vayikra (23:15) talking about sefiros haomer states:
"usefartem lachem mimacharas hashabbas".  We all know the famous machlokes
between the Chachamim and the Tzedukim as to what is the pshat in
mimacharas hashabbas with the tzedukim saying it means the day after
shabbos (Sunday) and the Chachamim saying it means the day after Yom Tov
(the second day of Pesach). According to your reasoning, the Targum should
have translated the pasuk literally and it would have been understood to
mean the day after Yom Tov. Yet, the Targum does NOT translate it
literally, but rather translates it as "mibasar yoma tova". The obvious
question is why? What we see from here is that in this case the Targum
understands that the pshat in the words mean yom tov, however, by ayin
tachas ayin where he does translate literally, the pshat is literal and it
is a derasha to say it is money.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150311/10202cc1/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:58:49 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin


On 03/11/2015 09:34 AM, via Avodah wrote:
> That is no chiddush, /everyone/ translates the pasuk literally. The
> translation is understood to mean "[the value of] an eye for an eye,
> [the value of] of a tooth for a tooth."  And it has /always/ been
> understood that way, since Sinai.  Had you met Onkelos in the street
> and asked him, "What did you mean by that?" he would have explained
> it to you the way I just did.

Well, he would say that regardless, since halacha follows drash, not pshat,
and both RMBs agree, of course, that the drash is money.   What we're arguing
about is not the halacha, but the *pshat* of "X tachas X".  The two RMBs insist
that the pshat is that the criminal must lose suffer X because the victim
suffered X; but so far neither of them has explained how that supposed meaning
can be applied to all instances of "X tachas X" in the passage, without it
contradicting itself.

RMBluke seems to think that Unkelus can be drafted into service on his side,
but he is begging the question.  Unkelus renders the pasuk word for word, so
his translation means exactly what the pasuk means, which is precisely the
subject of discussion.


> While you're about it you can ask him what he means by saying, "You
> shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk."

Actually Unkelus translates that as "don't eat meat with milk".

-- 
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: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 16:38:55 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin


On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:58:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Well, he would say that regardless, since halacha follows drash, not pshat,
: and both RMBs agree, of course, that the drash is money.   What we're arguing
: about is not the halacha, but the *pshat* of "X tachas X"...

If peshat of "ayin tachas ayin" is monetary payment, then how could it
be a derashah? Why would the gemara require a second pasuq so that we
have a pasuq mufneh to darshen -- just read the pasuq, add sevara, and
voila! You don't need a pasuq mufneh to determine that "lo sirtzach"
means "don't murder".

-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:09:07 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Even Appearance of Apostasy


On 03/10/2015 06:42 PM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote:
> Rambam's famous Igeres Hashmad begins with the straw-man, an author who
> claimed that if a Christian by force - such as at point of a sword -
> forced a Jew to say words of idol worship or bow to an idol, that person
> would be considered a traitor to Judaism. Rambam mocks the unnamed
> author mercilessly.

The target of Igeres Hashmad was not a straw man.   The Rambam is addressing
an actual person who wrote an actual teshuvah with specific arguments, which
he  refutes one by one.

And that person's argument was *not* about Christians.  Aderaba, bowing to an
idol is an act of avoda zarah, which the Rambam agrees is forbidden even
at sword-point, and one who does so has transgressed the terrible sin of
chilul haShem.   The Rambam does defend such a person from the extremity
of his target's attack, asserting that he has not thereby become a goy, and
he is not punished for his sin, but he agrees that it is certainly a sin.

The Rambam specifically notes that the shmad his community was then facing
was different in kind from all previous shmaddos.  All the government demanded
of a Jew was that he say some words which, while contradicting the Torah, did
not involve AZ, and they didn't even demand that he believe the words, just that
he say them.   No sinful act at all was demanded, let alone one of AZ.  Therefore
the Rambam held that while sacrificing ones life was still praiseworthy, it was
not required, and that one who asked a shayla should be told to comply with the
government's demands until he could leave the country.


> At the opposite extreme stands the charismatic leader, Rabeinu Ephraim
> of Bonne/Regensburg. This extraordinary poetic soul reacted strongly to
> any appearances of Avoda Zara.
>  [...]
> There is a very important Halacha point here - Rabeinu Ephraim considered
> it a duty to perform acts of Kidush Hashem for appearance's sake.

There is no contradiction between the Rambam and Rabbenu Efraim.  RE would
agree with every word of Igeres Hashmad, and the Rambam would agree
with every word RE wrote.   Both agree that conversion to Xianity is not
a matter of "appearances", it is actual AZ, and therefore one must give up
ones life rather than do it; but both would also agree that one who didn't
have the strength to do so remains a Jew in good standing, is not punished
at all, and can do teshuvah.


-- 
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: Arie Folger
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:17:49 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question on the Megillah


REMT wrote:

> He is, of course, correct. I misquoted the pasuk; it states that "
> Haman amad l'vakesish," not "nofeil al hamitta l';vakeish."
> However, it does not change the main thrust of my comment,
> that it is in complete disregard for the words of the Megilla to
> say that it was not until Achashveirosh found Haman on the
> bed that he "manned up."  Even before Achashveirosh stormed
> out in his anger, Haman knew that Achashveirosh had decided
> to kill him; he stood "'l'vakeish al nafsho" becuse "ra'a ki chal'sa
> eilav hara'a mei'eis hamelech."

Bimmechilat kevod toratecha, REMT, you are perhaps forgetting that while
you are reading the Megilla from an omniscient perspective, Haman and
Achashverosh each come with their own limited perspectives. Achashverosh
feels cornered, while Haman remains insecure. Achashverosh had to abdicate
to Haman and his party a tremendous amount of power, but he remained the
king, and Haman clearly remained on his toes. So it is Haman who is omed
levakesh al nafsho, because he is alone in the palace, where the king still
rules, and knows he might not make it out of there, but Achashverosh still
has to get used to the fact he can retake power from Haman now. Instead of
pronouncing a sentence or at least opposing Haman's decree, he leaves for
ginat habitan, still clueless as to how to handle this.

By the way, this supports / is supported by the dichotomy where Chazal
question whether melekh tipesh or melekh chakham haya. It might be a
combination of both.

I am not sure whether I posted this earlier, so let me bring another idea
of Rav Yaakov Meidan's. For him, Achashverosh was fearful that Esther was
setting up a trap, and that was very much confirmed by the noise of the
fifty amot gallows being erroected. For Achashverosh, there was a real
possibility these were being errected for him, hence balayla hahu naddeda
shenat hamelekh, and his desire to get an erstwhile loyal servant,
Mordechai, into the picture. That Mordechai was known to be an opponent of
Haman is possibly very important information the king was aware of and
intended to leverage.

Call this royal chess.


-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Respecting, Caring for and Helping the Convert
* When a Modest Proposal is Unreasonable
* Die Gestalt von Abraham im Midrasch ? Audio-Vortr?ge-Reihe
* Warum das heilige Land in einem Krisenherd liegt
* H?rt G?tt unsere Gebete?
* Sind unsere individuelle Taten von Bedeutung?
* Is Yom Kippur More Festive; Rosch haSchanah More Awesome?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150312/48f3bbd3/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:27:42 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin


On 03/11/2015 04:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote:> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 03:58:49PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : Well, he would say that regardless, since halacha follows drash, not pshat,
> : and both RMBs agree, of course, that the drash is money.   What we're arguing
> : about is not the halacha, but the *pshat* of "X tachas X"...
>
> If peshat of "ayin tachas ayin" is monetary payment, then how could it
> be a derashah? Why would the gemara require a second pasuq so that we
> have a pasuq mufneh to darshen -- just read the pasuq, add sevara, and
> voila! You don't need a pasuq mufneh to determine that "lo sirtzach"
> means "don't murder".

Until you can show how the passage can be made any sense of using your
translation of "X tachas X", it *can't* be pshat.   Until then it doesn't
matter what any authority says, or what questions you have on what the
authorities said, and what you can infer from that.  Pshat simply *has*
to make sense, by definition.


-- 
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: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:02:54 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin


On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 12:27:42PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: Until you can show how the passage can be made any sense of using your
: translation of "X tachas X", it *can't* be pshat.   Until then it doesn't
: matter what any authority says...

Not even an undispuited gemara?

Until then, we have an open question. I do not think rejecting chazal's
positon is an option.

But R' Saadia Gaon, quoted by the IE, quoted by the Ramban, are but a few
who give an oft-used explanation of the peshat -- that's it's a mussar
shmuess. The pasuq is intentionally phrased harshly to goad people to be
as careful not to harm others as they would to avoid injuring themselves.

I suggested on-list a couple of years back that this is true of Tanakh
in general. Text is about values, halakhah comes from derashah. Which is
why Nakh, from which we cannot darshen halakhah (except perhaps Esther
according to one opinion in the Y-mi, but do you know any medrashei
halakhah on Esther?), reads more blatantly like mussar books, with
examples to follow, cautionary tales to avoid, and outright preaching
of values.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
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: 12
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:38:09 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Origins and Nature of Derashos


<<The Geonim and the Rach also understand R' Yosi literally although they
pasken against him,
although I am not sure what that even means, why do we need a psak on
a historical
question?>>

I would ask not only why we need it but rather what does it mean. Does a
psak change whatever the "real" history was?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150312/3a743a85/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:51:15 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] archaeology and the exodus


I have nothing to add to Micha's discussion of "elef"
I recall that Ben Gurion argued that elef mean clans


However, the problem with a population of 2 million Jews leaving Egypt is
compounded by the addition of the "eruv rav"
Contemporary estimates for the population of Cannan in this period is under
100,000 people

http://www.talkreason.org/Forum.cfm?MESSAGEID=816

As we have discussed before sefer Yehoshua and Shoftim do not show the Jews
overwhelming the local population. In fact the conquest was very slow and
partial some lasting until the times of David and Shlomo

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150312/ad45cce4/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:48:43 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Yahrtzeit Haftarah


As best I can tell, the source for saying haftarah the Shabbat before a
yahrtzeit is the Zohar in acharei mot (77a) which refers to a "yanukah"
(tinok) saying a haftarah. Given the "lower" level of the maftir aliya (we
let a non bar mitzvah have it in circumstances) doesn't it seem odd to make
it the priority? Or am I missing something
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150312/b9235674/attachment.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)


< Previous Next >