Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 067

Sunday, June 11 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:55:45 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
RE: geirut

A few weeks ago (in Avodah Digest 17:59) R' Akiva Atwood asked:
> An interesting question -- under what conditions can we say an
> original geirus (of an adult) is retroactively null and void? How
> long after the fact, and what conditions would have to arise?

I did not see any responses to this, so I'd like to raise the question
again. To me, this question is an important one, which would make a lot
of Megilas Ruth more comprehensible.

If Orpah and Ruth converted *after* their husbands died, then I don't
understand why Ruth and Boaz would be considered as relatives. And if
they converted *before*, then I don't understand why Naomi would urge
them to remain behind.

I've heard that the above might be resolved by saying that they converted
before marrying, but that it was a conditional conversion, pending an
evaluation of some sort, kind of like RAA's question above. I'm not
familiar with the timeline of the Megilah, but I imagine thata it was
not merely a few hours from when they converted until leaving Moav,
which makes RAA's question all the more relevant.

Akiva Miller

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:16:44 -0400
From: "Aryeh Englander" <iarwain1@earthlink.net>
years for destruction of 1st and 2nd BH

 From the discussion of the rishonim and acharonim at Arachin 12b and
Avodah Zarah 9b (I know it from the Artscroll discussion of the subject
in Avodah Zarah), it seems that Rashi and the Rosh held the 2nd Beis
Hamikdash was destroyed in year 3828 (the 420th year of its building),
but most of the rishonim held it was in 3829 (year 421). Since these
dates are using the gemara's calculations (which doesn't have a shnas
tohu), so to convert to the common system would give us 3829 and 3830
respectively. Converting from there to common era dates, we get 69 and
70 ce; 70 ce is the date recounted in secular sources. To calculate the
date of the destruction of the 1st BH, we then subtract 492 years (421
of the second BH + 70 for golus Bavel + there's no year 0 in the secular
calendar so we've got to subtract an extra year) and we get 422 bce.

But I've heard that most traditional sources would date the destruction of
the 1st BH to 423 bce and the destruction of the second BH to 68 ce. Why?

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:37:04 -0400
From: hankman <salman@videotron.ca>
Re: measuring the mean lunar month

RAM wrote:
> As I see it, the records available to Hipparchus stated that 126007
> days and 1 hour had passed in the 4267 lunations from one eclipse to
> the other. He took that to be exactly 3024169 hours. Granted that that
> actual duration may have been quite a bit more or less than that, but
> nevertheless, those ARE the numbers he was working with, and when we
> divide them, they DO average out to about 29.5 days and 792.979
> chalakim.

Are we working backwards here, (given that Hipparchus came up with 29.5
d 793 ch) therefore his records must have been such as to have 125007
days and 1 hour, which gives the desired result for 4267 lunations? Do
we know how he calculated the number of days based on the Babylonian
and Greek chronologies at his disposition? Any experts on this matter? I
imagine they (I am not sure) did not have a single calendar with fixed
month lengths over the entire 345 year period in question. Probably many
regnal segments (and interregnums) that had to be strung together, so
without perfect records (possible but I am skeptical) wrt to the exact
succession days etc. an error on the order of several days over the
period is quite possible, (correct me if I am clearly wrong). Also if
their calendars had variable length months (as ours did) we would need
records for the length of each month over that period. Thus even given
the date and time of the eclipse 345 years earlier an error of one day
would only amount to an error in the mean of about 6 chelakim.

Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:52:44 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: measuring the mean lunar month

RAM wrote something to me in private email that convinced me that I don't
understand the topic. So I withdraw all my comments with apologies to
anyone who I brought along in my confusion.

Here's the problem. Look at the "origin" of Dogget's formula, the
astronomical molad (AM) at 1-1-2000. Dogett's formula says that it was
29.5305888531 days long -- but that's hundredths of a cheileq less than
our traditional molad. How could it have been correct in Hillel's day
and yet correct (or slightly under R' Gamliel's "no less than" value of
29d 6h 793ch) at 29d 6h 792.863ch?

I need to return to R' Dr Moris Engelson's paper and start
again from the begining. Currently, a version of the paper is at


Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

Go to top.

Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:23:07 EDT
From: T613K@aol.com
Re: nevuah in Hebrew

RET asked:
> was the nevuah of Hashem to Bilaam in Hebrew?
> Are the words in the Torah the actual words that Bilaam used?

This is an excellent question. A similar question could be asked
about the language in which Hashem addressed Lavan, though perhaps that
being a dream was a lesser level of nevuah (or not nevuah at all?).
When Hashem spoke to Avimelech in a dream, there is more reason to think
it was in Hebrew, because it seems that the language of the people of
Canaan was Hebrew or something very close to Hebrew. Lavan apparently
spoke a different language than Hebrew, because he called his pillar
"yegar sahadusah" -- which is not Hebrew.

Segue to related subject, what language did Avraham speak before coming
to Canaan? Did he speak the same language Lavan and the rest of the
mishpacha spoke? Was that language Hebrew? If not, then in what
language did Hashem address him when He said, "Lech lecha"? And how
and when did Avraham switch languages? No but Avram must have spoken
Hebrew or a closely-related language because his name and Sarai's
name are clearly Semitic. Hnm, Lavan, Rachel and Leah are also all
Semitic names -- but what about Lot? What language is that, and what
does the name mean? Terach, Bilhah, Zilpah -- are these Hebrew words?
What do they mean?

 -Toby  Katz

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:24:54 +0200
From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
eliyahu hanavi

> Hashem DOES NOT consider this a good thing, and so, to make sure it's
> clear he sends Davka Eliyahu HaNavi with the job of restoring peace and
> brotherhood. Why Eliyahu? B/c Eliyahu is known as the greates Kanoi of
> all times. That is what he represents.

Does anyone know the origin of the connection between Pinchas and Eliyahu?
whether physical, gilgul or simply similar in spirit.
This is assumed in a number of medrashim though others assume that
Eliyahu is not a Cohen.
However, I have not found a source that indicates why the two are

One possibility is because the two are kanayim as hinted above

Eli Turkel

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:09:01 +0300
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
Re: measuring the mean lunar month

RAF requested:
> Could someone either compile or point to a short list of key astronomic
> terms and their definition in layman's terms, relevant to 'ibur hachodesh
> and 'ibur hashannah?

Not quite what you had on mind, and I'm sure you've already studied it;
the Tiferes Yisroel's "Shvilay D'Rokia" is a must read. It's found in
the TY's introduction to Seder Mo'ed.

At the opposite extreme you could lookup http://answers.com/moon for a
velt of lunar information and http://answers.com/Jewish%20calendar for
some information and lots of potential links.

A Gut Voch
 - Danny

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 20:37:18 +1000
From: Joe Slater <avodah@slatermold.com>
Calculating the Molad - a new theory

Jewish tradition tells us that the average time between moladot is 29
days, 12 hours and 793 chelakim. This figure is remarkably accurate,
and it stands as a tribute to the ancient astronomers who calculated
it. In this post I will describe a way that it could have been calculated
without the use of precise instruments and without lengthy observation
periods. I assume only that the person making the calculation kept a
record of the years, months and days between eclipses, and that he or
she was capable of measuring the angular separation between stars in
the sky to a precision of around one degree.

The moon moves in an elliptical (football-shaped) path around the
earth; the earth moves in an elliptical path around the sun. As far
as we need be concerned the time it takes for the moon or the earth
to follow their paths is constant, but the speed with which either the
moon or the earth is are moving at any particular time is not constant:
they are fastest when they are closest to their primary and slowest when
they are most distant.

Because of the earth's orbit the sun will (appear to) trace out a great
circle through the stars of the sky during the course of a year. The path
it takes is called the _ecliptic_, because that path is where eclipses
can take place. The constellations which you know from astrology are
the ones which lie along the ecliptic. A _sidereal year_ is the time
it takes for the sun to (apparently) move from being in line with one
constellation, along what we perceive as its path through the sky, and
back in line with the same constellation. A _sidereal month_ is the
time it takes for the moon to do the same thing. The word "sidereal"
is from the Latin word "siderus", "relating to the stars".

A new moon (what I will call the true molad) occurs when the earth and
the moon are in an approximately straight line with the sun. The period
of time between moladot is called a _synodic month_. If the earth didn't
orbit the sun there would be a new moon every time the moon revolved
once around the earth, but the earth's path around the sun means that
the moon must move a bit further along its orbit in order to reach the
point of the true molad. Over the period that the moon revolves once
around the sun (that is, over a sidereal year) the moon effectively loses
one month. On average there will be one fewer synodic month in a year,
relative to the number of sidereal months.

As I said before, neither the earth nor the moon move at a constant
speed. This means that the extra time taken for the moon to reach
the point of the true molad will vary depending on where the earth is
relative to the sun, and where the moon is relative to the earth. This
all seems very complicated, and it actually does take some effort
to calculate the time of the true molad and therefore the length of
each synodic month. But the *average* length of a synodic month is
necessarily based on the length of the sidereal month and the length of
the sidereal year. Both of these periods can be calculated relatively
easily. Suppose you observe a solar eclipse. Since it's dark, you can
easily record the exact position of the eclipse relative to the stars.
At the next solar eclipse you record the new position of the eclipse
relative to the stars. This is where it gets clever.

You know how many days there were between the two observations. It's easy
to tell roughly how many years these days come to, and by measuring the
relative position of the sun at each eclipse you know exactly how much of
a year is left over. Let's say that you measure two eclipses four years
apart to have occurred 15 degrees apart in the ecliptic. Then you know
that the number of sidereal years between the two eclipses is actually
4 + 15/360 = 4 1/24th of a year. You can make a similar calculation for
the number of sidereal months. Since we know that in every year there is
one fewer synodic month than sidereal months we have enough information
to calculate the length of a synodic month:

Let y = the number of sidereal years between observations (including
any fraction of a year).
Let m = the number of sidereal months between observations (including
any fraction of a month).
Let t = the number of days between observations (including any fraction
of a day).
Let s = the average length of a sidereal month.

By the definitions above, s = t/(m-y).

The wonderful thing about this formula is that errors in observation
will tend to cancel each other out. Suppose that we mistakenly measure
the distance between the two eclipses as being an extra 15 degrees
apart. In that case our equation becomes s= t/((m+15/360) - (y+15/360))
which is still equal to t/(m-y).

There is still another source of error - we may have miscalculated
the amount of time between the two eclipses. This measurement can be
quite precise because the stars (which are visible during the eclipse)
act as a giant 24-hour clock. If we assume that the angular position
of the stars can be measured to just one degree of accuracy (a very
conservative assumption) then time can be measured to a precision of
four minutes. If the two eclipses used were as close together as six
years then an average four-minute error between the two observations
would result in an error of less than one chelek. In reality the period
of measurement would be much greater than this, and repeated observations
should eliminate almost all error.

I have not seen this method described elsewhere and I may have got
something very wrong. I know I haven't accounted for the fact that the
moon's ecliptic is slightly tilted with respect to the solar ecliptic,
but I feel that this will have little to no effect on the result. In any
event, I think that this method is so much more likely to be correct
than the one usually described (average the time between distant
solar eclipses) that it is probably the one which was used by ancient
astronomers. It is certainly the sort of thing they would have understood.

Go to top.

Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:54:06 +0200
From: "D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il>
Re:: me'ein hachasima

Re: <<not found in some nuschaot, e.g. Chabad and Temani (Shami)>>.

As the Shami nusach is the Sefaradi nusach there is no surprise that it
is the same and doesn't have the additional sentence that the Ashkenazi
nusach has. Perhaps the poster meant to write that the Baladi (and
Darda'i) Temani nusach also omits the sentence but adds two words ending
... H' Tzvaot sh'mo, k'dosh Yisrael.

Abudarham states that some add H' Tzvaot sh'mo chai v'kayam ..etc. but
that it is an error because the addition is not me'ein chatima. Maharitz
in the Tikhlal justifies the Teimani ending (that includes H' tzv...) by
pointing out that Abudarham did not mean that H' tzvaot sh'mo is not
me'ein hatima but only that the chai v'kayam etc is not me'ein hatima.
While the siddur of R' Sa'adia and the siddur hag'onim of R' Shlomo ben
Natan (1150-1200?? No. Africa) both omit the El hai v'kayam sentence,
they both have the k'dosh Yisrael as noted above for the Baladi. IIRC,
nusach Italya has the extra sentence as does Mahzor Vitry. I don't have
them handy to check. If I'd check various chasidic rebbis siddurim I'd
find them mixed, some with added sentence some without - Same as for
Ohr chadash and Tzur Yisrael mentioned in another posting.

Re: my posting noting omission <<in Sefaradi or Chabad siddur, among
others,>> (I should have written, ALL Sefardic siddurim, Morocco,
Iraq, Turkey,Italy, XX-istan etc. Nusach Italya, ak"a Nusach Roma, is
not Sefaradi). R' Gershon asked: <<I'd still have asked why Ashkenaz
retains it.>>

Retained it or added it???

That is not really a very intelligent comment or question as both nuschaot
and variants are ancient. Nusach Italya makes me think (without evidence)
that the addition is Nusach E"Y and got to Ashkenaz from there. Sa'adia,
R'Shlomo ben Natan and Baladi identical and omitting seems to be Bavel,
but I have a suspicion I should check R' Amram Gaon before I feel too
strongly. I don't have it at home and not certain if I remember correctly
and even less certain that the edition in shul is even close to what
R' Amram really wrote. Remember, R' Amram also quotes R' Sa'adia's
instruction to omit ohr chadash!!


Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 08:21:48 +0300
From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
Pearl in the mouth

>"It was a pearl in [the Vilna Gaon's] mouth, that a measure that
>a person is lacking in the treasured knowledge of the forces of nature,
>will be lacking 100 fold of the wisdom of Torah."
>   - Qol haTor pg 123,
>      as per R' Aharon Moshe Shreiber, BDD

Rashi translates 'margela bepumei' from the word rogil, it was usual
in his mouth (usual for him to say). See Rashi Brachos 17a,Sanhedrin
50b. (as opposed to from the word margolis, a pearl or gem.)

Akiva Blum

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 05:58:57 -0400
From: "S & R Coffer" <rivkyc@sympatico.ca>
RE: Tzimtzum KePeshuto

On June 9, 2006, Moshe Shulman wrote:
> Again it will try not to be too open here...

It seems clear to me that R' Shulman and I will not see eye to eye.
Consequently, further discourse seems futile so this will be my final
response to him bl'n. One of my issues is that he quotes many seforim
without supplying mareh mikomos thus making it exceedingly difficult to
respond. I have responded below to whatever I was able to without the
appropriate references.

> The Gra was very controversial because
> he openly disagreed with the Ari in a number of issues. 

The Gra had several talmidim. R' Chaim Volozhin, his most famous, was
always congenial to the Chassidim of his generation and even worked hand
in hand with the Chassidim on occasion. However, one of the few episodes
which caused him to protest in an 'unmitigated' fashion is the claim R'
Shulman makes above.

Furthermore, one of the Gra's greatest talmidim (I don't remember if
it was R' MM of Shklov or R' Menashe of Ilya), stated that any of
the ostensible disagreements between the Gra and the Ari were only
superficial. Anyone understanding the omek haDivarim would understand
that there really wasn't any machlokes.

Experience has shown me that only individuals looking to introduce
a wedge between the Gra and the Ari gravitate to R' Shulman's above
characterization (although perhaps through no fault of his own as his
understanding seems to be transmitted from his Rebbi).

> I mention this here because the sefer
> Nefesh HaChaim is being quoted and I have a Kabalah from my Rebbe
> ZT'L that there are problems with it's views.

Again, an obviously Chassidic impression (Slonimer Chassidim relate that
R' Avrohom's manuscript of his sefer Yesod haAvodah was replete with
notations in the margin which read "not like R' Chaim" - R' Avrohom was
the first Slonimer Rebbe)

Even if R' Shulman is not gravitating to the Chassidic view (which I
would have no problem with), he does not indicate to whom he pledges
allegiance to as far his traditions are concerned (leaving me with the
only available option of assuming).

>>Incidentally, for a thoroughly presented view of the difference between
>>Atzmus and non-Atzmus, and for an explanation of the enigmatic words of
>>the Arizal in his haKdama to Eitz Chaim in which he claims that all the
>>shemos and kinuyim are forms of Atzmus which are nispashet in the sefiros,
>>see the decidedly un-Chabad sefer Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek Beis.

> A better one is found in the sefer Or Zerua from the Maharam Pafrish.

A better one? What makes you say so? Again a seemingly Chassidic comment.
Not that I have any problem with Chassidic approaches chs'v; I would
just like to maintain an open debate focused on the issues and debated
on their merits rather than appealing to partisanship in my arguments.

>>Literal contraction of the Or Ein Sof. I made this clear several times

> I asked because it was not clear to me. I was taught to learn first
> Shomer Emunim, so you can tell where i am coming from.

Actually, no. The Shomer Emunim is universally recognized. In fact, after
the ban on Kabbala imposed by the post Shabtai Zvi gedolim, one of the only
two kabbalistic seforim that were permissible was the SE. 

> However in
> Ziditchov/Komarna they would appear to have a view you would consider
> k'peshito, but in no way can that be seen as being anywhere near
> kefira. My understanding of TkP that would have problem is belief in a
> literal tzimtzum that left a literal physical empty place afterwards.

>>> But many seforim do speak of Him. The discussion of philosophers
>>> about attributes of G-d is an example of such discussions.

>>Serious error. In fact, this is precisely the error which causes the
>>obfuscation of concepts like tzimtzum and which I consider karov le'kfira
>>but I won't argue with you. Just see Nefesh haChaim Shaar Beis Perek
>>Beis for a proper perspective on the attributes of the Boreh.

> Not really an error. Kabbalists are just more radical in their
> monotheism then philosophers. There is an interesting note in Tanya
> chapter 2 relating to this.

But you and I weren't discussing olamos higher than Atzilus as your
aforementioned note mentions; we were discussing Atzmus versus non-Atzmus
which has nothing to do with the note in Tanya. In fact, this is precisely
what the baal haTanya is coming to be sholel.

Best wishes

Simcha Coffer  

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:34:37 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Re: Pre-Ge'ulah: VeHeiShiv Lev Avot Al Banim

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net>

> So, when Kano'im pre-Ge'ulah come and say that they are saving these
> children's souls, and the cost of alienating parents and children is
> justified -- Elyahu, the greatest Kanoi will come and say NO! It is
> not right! And parents and children --Jewish families will be reunited.

See 1 Kings 19:19-21, Radak on pasuk 21.

David Riceman

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:48:08 -0400
From: "David Riceman" <driceman@worldnet.att.net>
Re: eliyahu hanavi

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> Does anyone know the origin of the connection between Pinchas and Eliyahu?
> <snip>
> However, I have not found a source that indicates why the two are
> connected.
> One possibility is because the two are kanayim as hinted above

I don't have a source either but I said that at my son's bris. Pinhas:
"Tahas asher kinei l'elokav", Eliyahu: "Kano kineisi lashem ..."
See Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, vol. 6 pp. 316-317 (note 3).

David Riceman 

Go to top.

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:19:16 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Re: Nevu'ah in Hebrew?

Tue, 6 Jun 2006 from: R. Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>:
> Yesodei haTorah 7:4, "Hedevarim shemodi'im lenavi bemar'eh hanevu'ah,
> derekh mashal modi'in lo... kemo hasulam.. kemo hachayos shera'ah
> yechezqeil, vehasir hanafu'ach... vekhen she'ar hanevi'im, yeish meihem
> omerin hamashel upisrono kemo eilu, veyeish meihem omerin hapisron
> bilvad."

> However in the Moreh, he speaks of mar'eh, of words spoken within the
> mar'eh, and of words (like those to the young Shemu'el) where the navi
> doesn't directly experience anything abnormal (Moreh II:42).

> Does his kelal in YhT mean "almost always"? How else to avoid the
> contradiction?

Here's another way. You are evidently reading Yesodei HaTorah 7:3
("Hedevarim shemodi'im lenavi bemar'eh hanevu'ah, derekh mashal modi'in
lo.") to mean that all things communicated to a navi are concepts
transmitted through methaphoric imagery [and not words]. I would translate
it differently, and I'll explain why I think my translation is correct.

I would translate it, "Those things made known to a navi in the visual
portion of a prophecy are [really only concepts] transmitted through
metaphoric imagary." The Rambam's point being that when the navi "sees
Hashem" as a warrior, or "sees" angels ascending and descending a ladder,
he is not seeing reality, but a representative model of it. Since the
navi is not on the level of Moshe Rabbeynu, he needs this "visual aid" to
gain a grasp of the concept. The Rambam continues to tell us that Hashem
always immediately instills into the navi's mind the correct intepretation
of this image. (And he then tells us that the navi, if so instructed,
communicates either the image, or the message, or both, to the people.)

In other words, the images in the propecies are metaphorical, but
they may contain words or images or both. My point is, the Rambam,
in Yesodei HaTorah as well as in Moreh Nevuchim, is not negating the
fact that prophecies can also be transmitted wholly or partly through
perceived spoken sentences.

This understanding explains why the Rambam uses as an example the
"almond tree staff" image of Yirmiyahu. The visual part of the vision was
metaphhorical, although the navi also perceived an accompanying "auditory"
track, in the form of Hebrew sentences with the play on Hebrew words.

Another example the Rambam gives is the ladder with angels going up
and down on it (--that's the Rambam's sequence, not "down and up,"
as the posuk actually reads). This the Rambam explains was a metaphor
for the world's kingdoms and their domination. Yet the pesukim report
Hashem saying to Yaakov only that his descendants will inherit Eretz
Yisroel. This is not a contradiction, because the Rambam is talking about
the the meaning of the image, whereas the pesukim, after describing the
image, go on to report the auditory part of the prophecy, which contained
additional information beyond the meaning of the imagery.

FWIW, the Sefer Ikkarim, which generally follows the Rambam's ideas,
clearly understands the concept this way (III:9). To take but one passage,
he writes,

"...although G-d is a nivdal and it is impossible to comprehend Him,
He nevertheless appears to the prophet in a given form, which the
prophet sees speaking to him, although in reality there is no such form
in existence, the voice alone which the prophet hears being the real
purpose of the vision, and nothing else."

Do you think I'm on the right track?

[Email #2. -mi]

Tue, 6 Jun 2006 from: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
> Does his kelal in YhT mean "almost always"? How else to avoid the
> contradiction?

> In any case, it gives the possibility that whenever nevu'ah is through
> speech, the speech is Hebrew.

Between the words, "vehasir hanafu'ach... vekhen she'ar hanevi'im," the
Rambam in Yesodei HaTorah (actually 7:3) gives as another example the
"makale shakeyd" the almond tree staff that Yirmiyahu saw (Yirmiyahu
1:11 ff.). Hashem asks him, What do you see, Yirmiyahu?" and Yirmiyahu
answers, "I see a 'makale shakeyd,' an almond tree staff. Hashem replies,
"Haytavta lir'os, ki 'shokeyd' ani al devari la'asoso," "You have seen
well, for I hasten ('shokeyd') to fulfill my word." This is an obvious
play on the Hebrew words for "almond"--shakeyd, and ""hasten,"--shokeyd,
and in another language it would be senseless.

This indicates that at least one part of one nevuah of one navi was
communicated in Hebrew.

[Email #3. -mi]

Thu, 8 Jun 2006 from R. Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com>
> was the nevuah of Hashem to Bilaam in Hebrew?
> Are the words in the Torah the actual words that Bilaam used?

The Rambam makes it clear that Bilaam was not the kind of navi that he
is talking about. Not that I understand his chillukim and how they shtim
with Chazal. But Bilaam as a "navi" is a whole 'nother parsha.

Zvi Lampel

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >