Volume 33: Number 34
Mon, 02 Mar 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: via Avodah
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 13:47:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
From: Zev Sero via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>>The Yalkut Shimoni, which explicitly gives this narrative, specifies that
the king says "You destroyed the old contract, and now you want a new one;
very well, you bring me all the materials, and I will provide my
handwriting."
In other words, you broke it, you fix it to the extent that you can, and I
will only do what you can't.
But note that the very same Yalkut then says that in fact Hashem provided
Moshe with the raw material from which he could fashion the new luchos!
The implication, it seems to me, is that the second luchos were also not
physical sapphire but the same "maaseh-Elokim stuff" from which Hashem
made the first ones. <<
--
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name
>>>>>
There seem to be dueling midrashim here. You say the luchos were not made
of anything physical, yet IIRC Rashi says Moshe Rabbeinu became wealthy
from the sapphire stones that were the pesoles when he carved the [square?]
luchos from the one big sapphire chunk he started with. Also Rashi (or
somebody) says that the luchos carried themselves, but when the letters on the
luchos flew up to heaven, the tablets became so heavy that Moshe could no
longer carry them, and they fell out of his arms (rather than being actually
thrown).
Of course if the letters were carved /into/ the stone rather than standing
out like bas relief, it's hard to picture how they could have flown up --
how could empty spaces fly up? And what then was left on the luchos --
deeper holes? Or were the engraved letters filled in with paint, and it was the
paint that flew up?
But anyway it really doesn't seem that the luchos were made of something
that was non-physical. Or you have to pick one medrash over another.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150301/e6c7623f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 14:50:38 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 03/01/2015 09:54 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R'Zev Sero wrote:
>> And what does it say immediately afterwards? "Ulvai ve'eten bah yadi,
>> hada hu dichsiv, 'Ve'echtov al haluchos'". The king tells his wife's
>> advocate you prepare the document and I will sign it, thus it is written,
>> "and *I will write* on the luchos". Hashem clearly says that *He*, not
>> Moshe, will write. This seems to contradict the reisha of the medrash,
>> but that's not my problem.
>
> The medrash is saying that Hashem will HELP Moshe write it, not write it himself.
No, it isn't saying that. It's just not there.
>> But really I don't care what one opinion in the medrash says, since the
>> medrash has no authority to contradict explicit pesukim;
>
> That is ridiculous, are we karaim who interpret the Torah literally?
> The pasuk says ayin tachas ayin, yet Chazal teach us that we don't
> take someone's eye out, but rather pay money. According to you how do
> Chazal have the authority to contradict an explicit pasuk?
That is not a good example, because as Rashi points out that is not derush
at all but the simple peshat, and it's impossible to read it any other way.
> There are many similar examples in agadda as well, for example, the
> pasuk says that Reuven slept with Bilha, yet Chazal say that anyone
> who says Reuven sinned is making a mistake. How can Chazal contradict
> an explicit pasuk? The fact is that Chazal reinterpret pesukim all
> the time, that is the essence of torah she b'aal peh.
Yes, derush reinterprets pesukim, and every time it does so it *says* so.
Here we have three explicit pesukim that Hashem wrote the luchos, and the
medrash makes no attempt at reinterpreting them. You're taking a medrash
on a *different* pasuk, of which the standard pshat (as given by Rashi) is
that doesn't refer to the luchos at all, and you've found a few opinions
in the medrash that it does refer to the luchos, but most of them reinterpret
*that* pasuk so that it doesn't really mean Moshe wrote, so you're left with
one opinion in that medrash, which *starts* out saying that Moshe wrote and
finishes apparently saying that he didn't.
> R' Zev Sero wrote:
>>>> "whatever was on the first set was on the second set. There is no
>>>> possible doubt or machlokes about that."
>>> There certainly is. It is not at all clear that the 2 luchos had the
>>> same text. The Gemara in Bava Kama (54b-55a) has the following story:
>>> [story omitted]
>> I don't have an explanation for this story, but once again we have
>> an explicit pasuk that the second luchos were "kamichtav harishon".
> See above, Chazal reinterpret explicit pesukim all the time.
So where do they reinterpret this one? Where do they explicitly say that
"kamichtav harishon" doesn't mean what it sounds like?
--
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: 3
From: Marty Bluke
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:32:43 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 03/01/2015 09:54 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>
>> R'Zev Sero wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> That is not a good example, because as Rashi points out that is not
> derush
> at all but the simple peshat, and it's impossible to read it any other way.
>
> It certainly is not peshat. If it was peshat why would the genera at the
beginning of Hachovel ask "amay, ayin tachas ayin kasav rachmana?", what
was the gemaras question if the simple peshat in the pasuk is money? In
fact, 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.
>
> There are many similar examples in agadda as well, for example, the
>> pasuk says that Reuven slept with Bilha, yet Chazal say that anyone
>> who says Reuven sinned is making a mistake. How can Chazal contradict
>> an explicit pasuk? The fact is that Chazal reinterpret pesukim all
>> the time, that is the essence of torah she b'aal peh.
>>
>
> Yes, derush reinterprets pesukim, and every time it does so it *says* so.
>
So now you completely changed your tune. In your previous response you
wrote
" since the medrash has no authority to contradict explicit pesukim"
You made a very definitive statement that Chazal cannot contradict explicit
pesukim. Now you agree that chazal can reinterpret/contradict pesukim but
only if they say they are reinterpreting. What is the source of this
statement? Have you checked every time that the gemara/medrash reinterprets
pesukim and made sure that they say they are reinterpreting? In fact, there
are many examples where Chazal reinterpret the pesukim and don't say that
they are reinterpreting the pesukim, rather they just give a derash which
is clearly against the peshuto shel mikra. 1 example is the Gemara in Bava
Kama (60b) where the Gemara quotes a story about Dovid hamelech and his
soldiers and then proceeds to come up with a wild derash (see the Radak
there) which completely contradicts the peshat of the pesukim without
saying so. In fact, this is typical, the Gemara/medrash quotes a pasuk and
then proceeds to darshen it without ever saying that they are going against
peshuto shel mikra.
Here we have three explicit pesukim that Hashem wrote the luchos, and the
> medrash makes no attempt at reinterpreting them. You're taking a medrash
> on a *different* pasuk, of which the standard pshat (as given by Rashi) is
> that doesn't refer to the luchos at all, and you've found a few opinions
> in the medrash that it does refer to the luchos, but most of them
> reinterpret
> *that* pasuk so that it doesn't really mean Moshe wrote, so you're left
> with
> one opinion in that medrash, which *starts* out saying that Moshe wrote and
> finishes apparently saying that he didn't.
The bottom line is that the Medrash there states explicitly that Moshe
wrote the second luchos, and the Gemara in Bava Kama (55a) according to
many mefarshim is discussing the question of whether the second luchos
matched the first, and concludes that they didn't, these are facts,
everything else is simply obfuscation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150301/5451fa56/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 16:05:06 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On 03/01/2015 03:32 PM, Marty Bluke wrote:
> R'Zev Sero wrote:
>> That is not a good example, because as Rashi points out that is not derush
>> at all but the simple peshat, and it's impossible to read it any other way.
>
> It certainly is not peshat.
It is absolutely peshat. Having learnt the Rashi (as you surely did)
how can you possibly read it any other way? He demonstrates clearly how
this is impossible.
> If it was peshat why would the genera at the beginning of Hachovel
> ask "amay, ayin tachas ayin kasav rachmana?"
First of all, since when does the gemara deal in peshat? The gemara's
stock in trade is drush. Second, it could be that the person who proposes
a hava amina that gets rejected didn't think the whole thing through in the
first place. Someone may have seen the words, taken them literally, and
rushed to ask a question, without first reading the whole paragraph and
seeing what it means.
> In fact, 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.
I am not responsible for what the Dor Revii (whoever that is) wrote or
didn't write. All I know is that the meaning of the pasuk is plain,
and Rashi's explanation is irrefutable.
>>> There are many similar examples in agadda as well, for example, the
>>> pasuk says that Reuven slept with Bilha, yet Chazal say that anyone
>>> who says Reuven sinned is making a mistake. How can Chazal contradict
>>> an explicit pasuk? The fact is that Chazal reinterpret pesukim all
>>> the time, that is the essence of torah she b'aal peh.
>> Yes, derush reinterprets pesukim, and every time it does so it *says* so.
> So now you completely changed your tune. In your previous response you wrote
> " since the medrash has no authority to contradict explicit pesukim"
> You made a very definitive statement that Chazal cannot contradict
> explicit pesukim. Now you agree that chazal can
> reinterpret/contradict pesukim
Reinterpreting and contradicting are two very different things.
> but only if they say they are
> reinterpreting. What is the source of this statement? Have you
> checked every time that the gemara/medrash reinterprets pesukim and
> made sure that they say they are reinterpreting? In fact, there are
> many examples where Chazal reinterpret the pesukim and don't say that
> they are reinterpreting the pesukim, rather they just give a derash
> which is clearly against the peshuto shel mikra.
That is how they say they are interpreting it. They *quote the pasuk*
and say "this is what it means". They're not saying it's the pshat,
but they are saying it's the drash. But they *say what they are doing*.
How can you compare that to *contradicting* pesukim which they do *not*
reinterpret? How can you claim they are reinterpreting those pesukim
without them saying so?
> 1 example is the
> Gemara in Bava Kama (60b) where the Gemara quotes a story about Dovid
> hamelech and his soldiers and then proceeds to come up with a wild
> derash (see the Radak there) which completely contradicts the peshat
> of the pesukim without saying so.
What do you mean without saying so? The gemara quotes the pesukim and
gives its interpretation. How much more explicit can you get? Here
you want to say that Chazal reinterpreted pesukim *without* saying so.
We are simply to suppose it, because you found a medrash elsewhere that
contradicts these pesukim.
In fact, this is typical, the
> Gemara/medrash quotes a pasuk and then proceeds to darshen it
*Exactly*. Listen to what you just wrote. When it is reinterpreting
a pasuk it *says so*. It quotes it and gives its interpretation.
> without ever saying that they are going against peshuto shel mikra.
Why would it have to say the drush is not the pshat? Not only is it obvious,
but there's also no basic assumption that drush *should* follow pshat. But
it does always say what it is doing.
>> Here we have three explicit pesukim that Hashem wrote the luchos, and the
>> medrash makes no attempt at reinterpreting them. You're taking a medrash
>> on a *different* pasuk, of which the standard pshat (as given by Rashi) is
>> that doesn't refer to the luchos at all, and you've found a few opinions
>> in the medrash that it does refer to the luchos, but most of them reinterpret
>> *that* pasuk so that it doesn't really mean Moshe wrote, so you're left with
>> one opinion in that medrash, which *starts* out saying that Moshe wrote and
>> finishes apparently saying that he didn't.
>
> The bottom line is that the Medrash there states explicitly that
> Moshe wrote the second luchos
No, it does not explicitly say so. The reisha seems to suggest it, but the
seifa backs away from it, and quotes a pasuk that explicitly says otherwise.
And the same medrash gives several other explanations that either say explicitly
or take for granted that Moshe didn't write them.
> and the Gemara in Bava Kama (55a)
> according to many mefarshim is discussing the question of whether the
> second luchos matched the first, and concludes that they didn't,
> these are facts, everything else is simply obfuscation.
We have an explicit pasuk that they did match. If the gemara wanted to
reinterpret that pasuk it could have done so, but it didn't. So there's
a kasha on the gemara. That doesn't justify ignoring the pasuk.
--
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: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:08:28 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:49:38AM +0200, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: The Gemara in Bava Kama (54b-55a) has the following story:
: R' Chanina ben Agil asked R' Chiya bar Abba why in the first dibros it
: doesn't say tov and in the second dibros it does? R' Chiya answered,
: you ask why it says tov, I don't even know if it does say tov and he
: sent him to ask R' Tanchum who explained that since the first luchos
: were broken they didn't say tov.
We also have the Ramban saying shamor and zakhor were both on the first
luchos, and only zakhor on the second luchos.
And the Beis haLevi.
There is so much evidence already raised that Zev hasn't started
addressing, without which we cannot share his compulsion to understand
Rashi or a medrash in non-naive ways because they "can't possibly"
be disagreeing with the pasuq.
His position also requires switching the subject in the middle of Shemos
34:28 with no warning, rather than read it naively -- that Moshe wrote
the second luchos. Which then creates a tension with pasuq 1, and room
(as well as need) for resolutionary midrashim that Zev won't allow them.
The two of you are going back-and-forth on smaller details of parts
of the dispute, but the disagreement is on the big picture. Zev doesn't
consider a non-literal take on Shemos 34:1 has legs to stand on. It's the
totality of the list of sources that would argue that the contrary
mehalekh is normative; not the one or two you can each point to your own
readings.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 22:05:19 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] charedi women's political party
R' Eli Turkel asked:
> Rabbi Mordechai Blau, chairman of the Guardians of Sanctity and
> Education group, has threatened in public that a woman who dares
> support a party which is not led by the Torah sages "will be
> deprived of a ketubah (Jewish marriage contract), people will
> not be permitted to purchase anything from her, and it will
> become a mitzvah to remove all her offspring from the
> institutions."
>
> http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4630596,00.html
>
> Is there any halachic basis to being deprived of a ketubah for
> undesirable (according to them) political activities. Of course
> this assumes the husband is divorcing her.
I have always considered the issur of Chametz She'avar Alav HaPesach to be
nothing more or less than an economic boycott, whose stated goal is to
penalize the violator for owning chometz on Pesach. To me, it does not seem
very different from the economic penalties described here.
Other examples have no economic ramifications, but are more clearly of the
"political" variety, if "politics" would be understood as disagreements
among Jewish groups: Mishnayos Yoma 1:5 - "We now make you swear by the One
Who makes His Name dwell in this House, that you will not change a thing
from all that we've told you. - And he turned away and cried, and they
turned away and cried." And similarly the many things related to Sefiras
HaOmer beginiing on Pesach 2 rather than the following Sunday. And
"V'lamalshinim" and many others.
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Skin Tightening For Men
Reduce The Look of Saggy Skin and Wrinkles, without Leaving Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f38d7d8a420d7d538bst04vuc
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 19:27:04 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] majority rule
<<Among Rabi Akiva's major students, Rabi Yehudah Bar Ilai stands out in the
Mishnah for preserving older traditions. He was the recognized preserver of
MAASEH historical memory. >>
I would have thought that since stam mishna is Rabbi Meir that he had the
best traditions
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150301/f5f77e76/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 19:30:08 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] different ways of pronouncing Hebrew
> Of course Avraham might have invented a similar language to speak
> with his wives and children, no way of knowing that.
Why would we even suppose that? >>
Because when they came to Eygpt that needed an interpreter that specialized
in Hebrew rather than the standard Aramaic
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150301/4d1b75b7/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: via Avodah
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:03:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tehiyyas hameisim
From: David Riceman via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
It looks like I'll be having open heart (valve replacement) surgery next
month. According to the people who accept Hazal's criteria of death
literally, and assuming that I survive the experience, would I have been
dead during the operation? What halachic effects would that have. For
instance, would my son inherit all of my property? Would I and my wife
have to remarry? Would I owe her her kesuba?
David Riceman
>>>>>
I think that halachically it is the cessation of respiration, not of the
pulse, that determines death. It seems that if a person stops breathing
temporarily but then is revived, he is not considered to have died. Otherwise
anyone whose life had been saved by the Heimlich maneuver would have the
same shaila you have.
What is your full Hebrew name? May the Ribono Shel Olam help you and give
you a speedy and complete recovery, refuah sheleima besoch she'ar cholei
Yisrael.
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150301/af8b9afd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 20:46:30 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] majority rule
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:33:34PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Of course, we would *like* to think that the system was designed to
: give us the best ability of determining Truth, but these rules suggest
: otherwise...
I dont have a need to wish that.
After all, a beis din that is to'eh bidevar mishnah is objectively wrong,
the par he'elem davar is their problem. But we admit they erred.
A beis din whose shiqul hadaas disagrees with what you think it ought
to say isn't necessarily wrong. I would argue (and have, repeatedly
over the past 16-1/2 years of Avodah) that we follow the Ritva, Raavad,
Ramban, et al (AFAIK every rishon on the topic but the Rambam), that
both opinions are Truth. And that is why I must follow them even if
al yemin shehu semol. (Whether or not the "nir'eh lekha" is the original
girsa, Rashi's text would make the same implication this way. There is
no objective conflivt of yemin vs semol WRT shiqul hada'as.)
If so, the purpose of the rules is to give us a means for selecting
which truth gets the authority of Law. The rules are thus legal in nature,
not truth-finding.
Which then gets to R/Dr Moshe Halbertal's three models of machloqes and
pesaq...
-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: 11
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 02:12:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tehiyyas hameisim
R' David Riceman wrote:
> It looks like I'll be having open heart (valve replacement)
> surgery next month. According to the people who accept Hazal's
> criteria of death literally, and assuming that I survive the
> experience, would I have been dead during the operation? What
> halachic effects would that have. For instance, would my son
> inherit all of my property? Would I and my wife have to remarry?
> Would I owe her her kesuba?
First and foremost, my best wishes and tefilos for a refuah sh'leimah!
Now, to discuss your question, which I presume is "l'halacha v'lo
l'maaseh", because you're explicitly asking about the ramifications of one
particular shita, rather than asking what you in particular should do.
It seems clear to me that your first question ("would I have been dead")
can be rephrased as: If I am alive after the procedure, does that prove
that I was never really dead at all, or perhaps I *was* dead?
That is exactly the case discussed by Rav Moshe Feinstein in Igros Moshe YD
2:174. (I've mentioned that teshuva on Avodah many times, such as in Vol 30
Number 33.) In that teshuva (bottom right paragraph on page 288), he cites
a Gemara about a jewel which has the ability to restore life, even to one
who was decapitated. He writes very clearly that "there is no chiyuv [to do
so] even during the week, because there is no chiyuv to revive the dead, so
on Shabbos it would be assur. ... It is pashut that even if Hashem
Yisborach would summon it [that jewel] to some person's hand, he would not
be obligated to revive dead people, because the Torah only obligated to
heal the sick, even violating Shabbos - but not to revive the dead."
If a secularist would use the word "irreversible" as part of his definition
of "death", I suppose that would be understandable. But if a Jew believes
in Techias Hameisim and includes "irreversible" in his definition of
"death", that would be contradictory and heretical, in my opinion. Rather:
We believe that death *is* a reversible condition. Poskim may disagree on
exactly how to determine whether or not a person is dead, but it seems very
clear to me that in Rav Moshe's eyes, the fact that a person can be revived
by a certain technology is NOT evidence that he had been alive all along;
he may indeed have been dead in the interim.
HOWEVER - I do not know if any of the above is relevant to open heart
surgery. All I've done so far is to say that revival of a patient does not
prove that he had been alive all along. It is possible that he was alive
all along for other reasons. In this particular case, I understand that the
heartbeat is stopped during such surgery. But what is the halachic
definition of death? A posek might hold that a lack of heartbeat *is* proof
of death, but I think it is fair to ask whether that definition is
sufficiently detailed: Maybe even that shita doesn't really require a
*heartbeat*, but merely requires *blood circulation*. In the case at hand,
we do know for a fact that the heart is not beating, but we also know for a
fact that the blood is kept circulating by other means, and perhaps that is
sufficient for halachic life.
I suspect that either (A) the vast majority of poskim hold that circulation
is enough even without a heartbeat, or (B) the vast majority of poskim hold
that revival *is* proof that the person never really died (despite my
arguments above). If neither of those is correct, then a person whose heart
is stopped during surgery *IS* halachically dead and then revived. But I
have never read any teshuvos or articles which address RDR's latter
questions about yerusha and widowhood. I don't claim to be an expert on
these things, but I have read a lot about medical halacha, and topics like
goses and brain death and so on, and the silence about revival is striking.
If I have missed something, I beg the chevreh to enlighten me.
I should note, however, the although I have not seen any halachos about
*medical* resuscitation, I *have* seen some about *messianic*
resuscitation: In 1994, Targum/Feldheim published "When Moshiach Comes -
Halachic and Aggadic Perspectives - The English Edition of Otzros Acharis
HaYamim" by Rabbi Yehudah Chayoun. Chapter 13 there discusses the Techiyas
Hameisim of the future, and several halachic ramifications, including how
it affect marriage status, both of people who had only one spouse, and also
of people who (because of widowhood or divorce) were married several times.
Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
Skin Tightening For Men
Reduce The Look of Saggy Skin and Wrinkles, without Leaving Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54f3c7662144047667b52st02vuc
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Zev Sero
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2015 20:20:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] different ways of pronouncing Hebrew
On 03/01/2015 12:30 PM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>>> Of course Avraham might have invented a similar language to speak
>>> with his wives and children, no way of knowing that.
>> Why would we even suppose that?
> Because when they came to Eygpt that needed an interpreter that
> specialized in Hebrew rather than the standard Aramaic
That doesn't mean Avraham invented it! I don't know why we would suppose
such a thing.
Of course Yaacov and his sons spoke Hebrew (which is how the interpreter,
Menashe, knew it). But who says the Kenaanim spoke it?
--
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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)