Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 142

Sat, 23 Dec 2017

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Mandel, Seth
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:46:51 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?


There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is
what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im.
This is clear from last weeks Parsha, where Par'oh speaks to Yosef,
kavyakhol in Hebrew.

However, just as much as there is no proof at all from the T'NaKh
that lots of people spoke Hebrew, even though the T'NaKh records them
in Hebrew, there is also no proof at all that certain people did not
speak Hebrew. The Ramban quotes the story of Lovon and Ya'akov to
"prove" that Lovon did not speak Hebrew. That is probable, but what
did Yaakov and Lovon speak together? What did Yaakov speak to Rochel and
Leah, who had never been in EY? OK, they all spoke what was spoken in
Aram Naharayim. Probably. But Yaakov and the Ovos must have learned
the language of K'na'an for Avrohom to speak to b'nei Het to buy the
Cave of the Patriarchs. So what exactly did Avrohom Ovinu say in the
language of Aram, whence he came, and what in the language of K'na'an?

QED that one cannot know from the T'NaKh who spoke what when and where.

The only thing we know is the Masorah, that HQBH dictated the Torah to
Moshe Rabbeinu in the eponymous Biblical Hebrew.

People ask whether Odom hoRishon spoke Hebrew. That is a question
that has no meaning. We do not know exactly what he spoke, nor is
it relevant. It might have been a precursor of Hebrew, IOW a language
like Hebrew, but a much older form. It could have been something else.
But, scientifically, it could not have been the same as the Hebrew spoken
in the time of Y'tzi'as Mitzrayim, because it has been proven that all
languages change over time.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 17:10:58 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?


On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:51PM +0000, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
: There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
: bilshon b'nei odom...

Well.... R' Yishmael says it. And it appears to be an argument for his
rules of derashah, which do not include looking for magic words like
"akh" (mi'ut), "raq" (mi'ut), "kol" (ribui) or even "es", but darshens
the meaning of terms, whether ribui or mi'ut.

The Rambam really sloganeers (like the CS's "chadash assur min haTorah")
when he uses it to explain that anthropomorphic descriptions of HQBH
are idioms, not to be taken overly literally. The point may be true, but
it has nothing to do with the quote.

The maqor is nothing remotely like:
:                         the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is
: what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im.

And besides, R' Aqiva disagrees!

Chodesh tov,
un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Professor L. Levine
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:27:34 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Yehudah Spoke Egyptian


Rabbi Yitzchok D. Frankel, Rav of the Agudah of the Five Towns, in Cedarhurst, NY,  asserts in his sefer


Machat shel Yad. Bereishis vol.2 (Back of Vayikrah)
Parshas VaYigash.



 that Yehudah did indeed speak Egyptian.  See


http://personal.stevens.edu/~llevine/yehudah_egyptian.pdf


for his argument.


YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171220/8e3dbdc4/attachment-0001.html>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Richard Wolberg
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:32:33 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Question on 48:1


In Vay?chi first sentence of Ch.48, why is ?choleh? spelled without a vov?
Nowhere have I found an explanation.


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Zev Sero
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 09:01:31 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?


On 19/12/17 02:37, Professor L. Levine via Avodah wrote:
> . And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a 
> language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries 
> were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for 
> kings and rulers to know several languages.

Then how is it that Yosef could pretend not to know it and need an 
interpreter.  More, how is it that Par'oh, who knew all the other 
languages, didn't know this one?


[Email #2. -micha]

On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is
> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im.

Rashi Bereshis 2:23
Bereshis Rabbah 18:4

[Eamil #3. -micha]


On 20/12/17 08:56, Mandel, Seth wrote:
> I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents.

> Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to be 
> literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document, but 
> rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are 'emes in 
> the spiritual sense.

1. This medrash is clearly intended literally.  Not only does it not 
contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple 
linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages).

2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for 
pshat.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Mandel, Seth
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 15:39:30 +0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?


From: Zev Sero <zev.s...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 7:45 AM
> On 19/12/17 12:46, Mandel, Seth via Avodah wrote:
>> There is no proof that anyone spoke Hebrew. Chazal say that dibb'ra Torah
>> bilshon b'nei odom, and the Torah was written in Hebrew because that is
>> what the Jews understood at the time of Moshe Rabbeinu and the N'vi'im.

> Rashi Bereshis 2:23
> Bereshis Rabbah 18:4

I am talking objective proof, from the T'NaKh and other documents.

Medrashim of Chazal teaches us important ideas, but are not meant to
be literally true. They do not intend to be a historical document,
but rather contain important moral and ethical teachings which are
'emes in the spiritual sense.

There are plenty of Medrashim that have ideas that seem to indicate
that HQBH or the angels spoke Hebrew. But, as the Rambam indicates,
HQBH does not have a mouth and does not speak as people speak. Rather,
all the p'sukim saying that HQBH spoke to Moshe or Aharon mean that He
communicated with them directly to their mind, not that He spoke acoustic
sounds that they heard with their physical ears.

The argument that Prof. Levine brought in the name of R. Frankel, OTOH,
does indeed show that Yehudah must have been speaking Egyptian, but yet
the Torah quotes him in Hebrew.


[Email #2. -micha]

From: Zev Sero <zev.s...@gmail.com> on behalf of Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 9:01:31 AM
> 1. This medrash is clearly intended literally.  Not only does it not
> contain any important moral or ethical teaching, it cites a simple
> linguistic proof (albeit based on a very small sample of languages).

> 2. Rashi only cites those medroshim that he believes are necessary for
> pshat.

This is not a conversation that is worth continuing. I have the
greatest respect for Jews who learn and seek to understand. But there
are certain discussions where the locutors speak past each other for no
benefit to either.

However, for others in the group that may be curious: if you understand
what the Rambam says in his introduction to Chapter 10 of Mas. Sanhedrin
regarding three approaches to what Chazal say, you will understand that
there is no point in one group arguing with the other group. A similar
case would be that there would be no point in the Rambam arguing with
Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam about whether demons exist or whether the Earth
is flat or round. The basic assumptions about the way things work are
too far apart.

I have said what I meant about medrashim, and the medrash that R. Zev
quotes does not contradict in my mind my statement that there is no proof
about the actual historical language used in anything in the Torah.
Nor does Rashi's use of the medrash contradict what I said. It would
be impossible to convince R. Tam's belief that the Earth is flat,
since in his understanding of the universe everything points to the
world being flat, and he can find statements in the G'moro that seem
to him to prove his case, and all scientists from his culture "knew"
that the Earth is flat. I challenge those who believe that illnesses
are caused by bacteria or viruses to bring me one proof that they are;
most rishonim knew that they were caused by evil spirits or bodily humors.
What a person believes is based on some basic assumptions, and different
Rishonim held very different assumptions in certain matters.

People might and did challenge the Rambam that it appears from their point
of view that the Rambam did not believe what Chazal say, or that I do
not believe what Chazal say. The Rambam believed that everything that
Chazal said is 'emes, but read his comments in the Perush haMishnayos
to see that absolute Truth means different things in different approaches.

Another example is how to reconcile the Truth that HQBH gave men free
will with the fact that HQBH knows everything that will happen. That can
only be explained if people understand certain assumptions about space
and time.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Yeshivat Har Etzion
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 12:25:30 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] VBM - Avodat Hashem #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part


PHILOSOPHY > Avodat Hashem - Foundations of Divine Service >
Shiur #51: The Mitzva of Mezuza (Part I)
Harav Baruch Gigi
Yeshivat Har Etzion

I. The Protection Offered by a Mezuza

We are currently engaged in a clarification of the system of mitzvot, in
the framework of the transition in Keriyat Shema from matters pertaining
to the Rambam's Sefer Mada to matters pertaining to his Sefer Ahava. Thus
far, we have studied the mitzva of tefillin and its unique meanings. Now,
let us turn to a closely-related mitzva - the mitzva of mezuza.

One of the central ideas relating to mezuza is the idea of protection.
When one affixes a mezuza to the entrance of his home, his house and
household are protected from all trouble and damage. This idea is
expressed by Chazal in several contexts, and it is based, as we will
demonstrate, on a connection that is already rooted in the verses of
the Torah.

At the end of the passage of Ve-haya im shamo'a, it is stated:

    And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon
    your gates; that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your
    children, upon the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give
    them, as the days of the heavens above the earth. (Devarim 11:20-21)

At first glance, it seems that the Torah's promise of longevity relates
to all that was stated in this passage concerning one who obeys all of
God's commandments and follows His ways.

However, Chazal linked this promise directly to the mitzva of mezuza.
Two talmudic passages establish a connection between longevity and the
mitzva of mezuza.

In tractate Shabbat (32b), it is taught that a person's children die
because of a failure to fulfill the mitzva of mezuza.[1] This is learned
from the juxtaposition of the commandment of mezuza to the verse that
promises that "your days will be multiplied, and the days of your
children." In a positive formulation, the Tur writes:

    Whoever is careful about it, his days and the days of his children
    will be lengthened, as it is written: "That your days may be
    multiplied, and the days of your children." (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285)

In tractate Kiddushin (34a), the gemara discusses the possibility of
exempting women from the mitzva of mezuza. At first, the gemara is of the
opinion that women are exempt, in view of the Torah's juxtaposition of
the mitzva of mezuza to the mitzva of Torah study, from which women are
exempt. However, the gemara rejects this possibility with the following
argument:

    You cannot think so, because it is written: ["And You shall write
    them upon the doorposts of your house...] that your days may be
    multiplied." Do men only need life, and not women? (Kiddushin 34a)

In this gemara as well, we clearly see that the promise of longevity
in relation to the mitzva of mezuza is so central that there is no room
even to entertain the possibility that women may be exempt from it. For
by removing women from the mitzva of mezuza you would be removing them
from the basic desire of existence, of life.

The Tur adds:

    Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse:
    "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand"
    (Tehillim 121:5). (Tur, ibid.)

II. The Rambam's View

The Rambam famously writes:

    It is a common custom to write [God's name] Shaddai on the
    outside of a mezuza, opposite the empty space left between the two
    passages. There is no difficulty in this, since the addition is made
    on the outside. However, those who write the names of angels, other
    sacred names, verses, or forms,[2] on the inside [of a mezuza] are
    among those who do not have a portion in the World-to-Come. Not only
    do these fools nullify the mitzva, but furthermore, they make from
    a great mitzva that reflects the unity of the name of the Holy One,
    blessed be He, the love of Him, and the service of Him, a talisman
    for their own benefit. They, in their foolish conception, think that
    this will help them regarding the vanities of the world. (Hilkhot
    Tefillin U-Mezuza 5:4)

The Kesef Mishneh (ad loc.) cites the objection raised by the Ramach
against the Rambam based on the gemara in Avoda Zara (11a). The gemara
there records a story about Onkelos, who became a proselyte, and the
emperor sent a contingent of soldiers after him. Among other things,
it is stated there:

    Again he sent another cohort ordering them not to enter into any
    conversation whatever with him. So they took hold of him; and as they
    were walking on, he saw the mezuza that was fixed on the door frame
    and he placed his hand on it saying to them, "Now what is this?" And
    they replied, "You tell us then." He said to them, "According to
    universal custom, the mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep
    guard on him without; but [in the case of] the Holy One, blessed is
    He, it is His servants who dwell within while He keeps guard on them
    from without, as it is stated: `The Lord shall guard your going out
    and your coming in from this time forth and for evermore' (Tehillim
    121:8)." Then they, too, were converted to Judaism. (Avoda Zara 11a)

From the difficulty raised by the Ramach, it may be concluded that in
his opinion the Rambam rejects the idea of protection that is attributed
to the mezuza. The Rambam views the mezuza as an expression of man's
connection to God, in that he declares at the entrance to his house
his faith in His unity and his love for Him, two of the foundations of
His service. According to the Ramach, the Rambam rejects the talismanic
qualities that were attributed to the mezuza by the ancients.

The Ramach attacks the Rambam's position, as he understood it, on the
grounds that the idea of protection is brought in the gemara itself:

    For in tractate Avoda Zara it is implied from that which Onkelos said
    to the Roman contingent that the Holy One, blessed is He, makes the
    mezuza to protect Israel from the outside. And one can force an answer
    that it was Onkelos who said this in order give importance to Israel.
    (Ramach, ad loc.)

In light of this, the Ramach struggles to reconcile the Rambam's
position, arguing that Onkelos said this to the Romans only in order
to praise Israel in their eyes. Onkelos told the Romans that the mezuza
symbolizes God's protection, as it were, over the houses of Israel. In
truth, however, the mitzva of mezuza is not a matter of God's protection,
but rather an expression of a person's faith in God's unity and service.

It stands to reason, however, that the Rambam does not challenge the very
idea of the protection offered by a mezuza. Thus writes the Kesef Mishneh
in light of the fact that the gemara in Menachot uses this principle to
determine the halakha regarding the proper placement of a mezuza:

    For in chapter Ha-Kometz (33b), regarding the rule that a mezuza
    must be placed in the handbreadth adjacent to the public domain,
    R. Huna said: "What is the reason? So that it may protect him."[3]
    Therefore you must say that in fact a mezuza protects the house when
    it is written properly. (Kesef Mishneh)

In the Kesef Mishneh's opinion, the Rambam rejects only those actions that
expanded the talismanic element of a mezuza - namely, the insertion of
the names of the angels into the mezuza. The Rambam sees the protective
quality of a mezuza in the connection between man and God and his belief
in Him and His unity.

In the continuation of our discussion, we will explain the idea of the
protection offered by a mezuza with greater precision and in greater
depth.

III. Additional Sources

The Yerushalmi states in tractate Pe'ah:

    Artaban sent to our holy Rabbi an invaluably precious pearl. He said
    to him: Send me something which is similarly precious. He sent him a
    mezuza. He said to him: What I have sent you is something priceless,
    but you have sent me something which is only worth one follis. He
    [Rabbi] said to him: Your treasures and my treasures are incomparable.
    And moreover, you have sent me something that I have to guard,
    while I have sent you something which guards you when you sleep, as
    it is written: "When you walk, it will lead you; when you lie down,
    it will watch over you; and when you awake, it will talk to you"
    (Mishlei 6:22). (Yerushalmi, Pe'ah 1:1)

Similarly, the Tur writes in Hilkhot Mezuza:

    Moreover, one's house is protected by it, as they expounded the verse:
    "The Lord is your keeper; the Lord is your shade upon your right hand"
    (Tehillim 121:5). A mortal king dwells within, and his servants keep
    guard on him without; but you sleep in your beds and the Holy One,
    blessed is He, guards you from without. Therefore, it should be
    placed in the outermost handbreadth, so that the entire house be
    within it and under its protection. (Tur, Yoreh De'ah 285)

The prevalent custom to write on the outside of the mezuza parchment
the name ShaDaY - which is expounded as an abbreviation for the words:
Shomer Delatot Yisrael, "Who guards the doors of Israel"[4] - also
reinforces this idea of a mezuza as protecting a person's home.

As stated, the basis of this idea is already found in the verses of the
Torah. Even though the Torah does not mention the idea of protection in
direct connection to the mitzva of mezuza, it is mentioned in connection
with another mezuza. In Parashat Bo, God commands the people of Israel to
place the blood of the paschal lamb on the two doorposts and lintel. The
reason for this is explained as follows:

    And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you
    are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall
    no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
    (Shemot 12:13)

And later in the same chapter:

    For the Lord will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He
    sees the blood upon the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord
    will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come
    in to your houses to smite you. (Shemot 12:23)

It is further stated at the end of that chapter:

    It was a night of watching to the Lord for bringing them out from
    the land of Egypt; this same night is a night of watching to the Lord
    for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. (Shemot
    12:42)

Rashi writes:

    "A night of watching to the Lord for all the children of Israel
    throughout their generations" - This night is protected, and comes as
    such from ages past, against all destructive forces, as it is stated:
    "And He will not suffer the destroyer to enter your houses" (v. 33).
    (Rashi, ad loc.)

IV. The Mezuza and the Paschal Offering

On the night of the exodus from Egypt, God protected the houses of the
people of Israel by way of the sign of the blood on the doorposts and
lintels, and because of this the night became a night of watching for
all generations.[5]

At first glance, it seems that the common denominator between the mitzva
of mezuza and the paschal offering is that in both cases we are commanded
to place a specific thing on the doorpost, thereby securing the protection
of the house and its inhabitants.

On the deeper level, it seems that the connection between the mitzva of
mezuza and the paschal offering is more substantive.

What is the significance of placing blood on the doorposts and lintel
of one's house? The paschal offering that the people of Israel brought
in Egypt was sacrificed as a family offering, a sheep for each family,
at the entrance to each family's home. In Egypt, of course, there was no
Temple and no altar. Therefore, it seems that the meaning of the blood
was to distinguish between the houses of the Israelites and the houses
of the Egyptians, in order to prevent the destroyer from coming into
the homes of the Israelites to attack.

However, the possibility that the blood was meant to distinguish between
the houses of Israel and the houses of Egypt raises a great difficulty, in
light of the midrashim of Chazal, which indicate that God Himself passed
through the land of Egypt. He certainly did not need a distinguishing
sign. So writes the Beit Yosef in his book, Maggid Meisharim:

    As for the difficulty with the verse, "And when I see the blood, I
    will pass over you," why was a sign needed, for surely everything is
    revealed to Him? It may be suggested that a sign was needed for the
    angels who came with Him. It may further be objected that this sign
    was with blood, which is a sign of death, the opposite of what they
    wanted. And furthermore, the sign should have been on the outside,
    and this sign was on the inside. But the secret of the matter is that
    the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted them to trust in Him and place
    the blood on the door from the inside. This is what is written:
    "And the blood shall be to you for a token." And instead of being
    afraid when they see the blood on the door, on the contrary they
    should trust their Master who commanded them to do this, so that
    He would be a salvation for them. This merit of trusting God would
    protect them. This is the meaning of what is written: "And the
    blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are;
    and when I see the blood, I will pass over you." That is to say,
    I will see the merit of your trust, that the blood that is a sign
    of death will be for you a sign of life when you trust the words of
    your Master. And for this reason, "when I see the blood, I will pass
    over you." (Maggid Meisharim, Parashat Bo)

It seems that trust in God involves not only doing the action required by
God on the simple level. What we have here is an important and profound
principle, in light of the gemara in Pesachim:

    R. Yosef taught: There were three altars there, on the lintel and
    on the two doorposts. (Pesachim 96a)

A broader picture emerges from the gemara. The paschal offering brought
in Egypt was a sacrifice offered at the entrance of a person's house,
his house serving as the Temple, and the entrance to his house being
the altar. While Chazal speak of three altars, it seems more accurate
to say that they are referring to the three corners of the altar.

The people of Israel are commanded to see their homes as the house
of God. With their trust in God, they express the strength of their
connection to Him by seeing their homes as God's house. And if their
house is the house of God, then the entrance to the house is an altar,
and they put of the blood on the three corners of the altar - the lintel
and the two doorposts.

This view, which sanctifies the houses of the people of Israel as the
Temple, is similar to what is stated: "In every place where I cause My
name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you" (Shemot 20:20).
In this way, the house becomes the basis of the covenant that is being
formed between God and His people, by virtue of their seeking His presence
within them.

If we are correct, it stands to reason that the idea of the protection
offered by a mezuza has a more fundamental and inner meaning. A person
turns his house into a house of God, and a house of God is protected,
as is stated in Tehillim:

    A Song of Ascents; of Shelomo. Except the Lord build the house,
    they labor in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city,
    the watchman wakes but in vain. (Tehillim 127:1)

God's protection is protection, and there is no other, it alone being
considered true protection.

These words connect with the words of the Rambam in Hilkhot Beit
Ha-Bechira, that the guarding in the Temple was merely a display of honor,
and not needed for the protection it offered, since the house of God is
not in need of protection:

    There is a positive mitzva to guard the Temple. [This mitzvah
    applies] even though there is no fear of enemies or thieves, for
    the guarding [of the Temple] is an expression of respect for it. A
    palace with guards is [much more impressive] than a palace without
    guards. (Rambam, Hilkhot Beit Ha-Bechira 8:1)

(Translated by David Strauss)

_______________________

[1] The gemara there states as follows: "R. Chiya bar Abba and R.
Yose disagree. One says: It is for the sin of neglect of mezuza [that a
person's children die]; while the other says: It is for the sin of the
neglect of Torah... It is well according to the one who says: It is for
the sin of the neglect of mezuza, for it is written: 'And you shall write
them upon the doorposts of your house,' which is followed by: 'that your
days may be multiplied, and the days of your children'" (Shabbat 32b).

[2] The Rambam is referring here to the ancient practice of inserting
all kinds of additions into the mezuza. Rabbeinu Eliezer of Metz writes
as follows: "It is common practice to add seals and the names of the
angels at the end of the Bible verses contained in the mezuza for the
sake of the increased security of the home. This is not indispensible,
nor even a mitzva, but simply serves as additional protection" (Yere'im
400). He then spells out in great detail the names of the angels and
where precisely they were inserted in the mezuza.

[3] According to the Ramach's understanding of the Rambam, it may be
suggested that this does not mean that a mezuza protects a person, but
rather that a person should be reminded of the principles of his faith
whenever he goes in or out of his house.

[4] See Kolbo: "The reason that we write this name more than the others
is that it is an abbreviation for Shomer Dirat Yisrael, "Who guards the
dwelling of Israel" (Kolbo, Mezuza 90).

[5] Establishing this night as a night of watching has halakhic
ramifications in a number of contexts. This is true regarding the
recitation of Shema before going to sleep and regarding the Me-Ein
Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder when it falls out on Friday
night. Many halakhic authorities rule that one should not say the Me-Ein
Sheva blessing on the night of the Seder, since it is a night of watching
that does not require protection.



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Ben Bradley
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 21:33:10 +0000
Subject:
[Avodah] Midrash Tanchuma


I'd be grateful to know if anyone here is sufficiently familiar with different editions of midrash tanchuma to help me out.
I acquired a copy of the Tanchuma from a second hand book shop, very
inexpensively, a number of years ago. I was a poor student at the time. It
was printed in 5645, ie 1885, by one Shlomo Buber (Bober?) in Lvov from
manuscripts acquired from Oxford and the Vatican.
I must admit I'd never paid much attention to these details until now, but
It's just come to my attention that it my copy is hugely different to the
standard one.
For example, this week in Vayigash, my copy has 12 simanim, compared to the
11 in the standard edition. But only 4 of these are the same (8-11 in mine
corresponding to 9-12 in the standard), all the others are utterly
different. By which I mean they are simply different midrashim, not just
variants.
Can anyone shed light on such a huge difference between what seems to be the standard edition and mine?
Best wishes
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171223/19d002d9/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >