Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 89

Fri, 12 Jun 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:17:45 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] replacement value


On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 09:25:43AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: secular law  [US] recognizes that one need is not liable replace a lost
: item with a new one...                               what does bais din
: require?


According to the Business Halakhah Institute
<http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/sefer-shul>:
    Many years ago I borrowed a Chumash with commentaries from a local
    beis medrash. I forgot to return it and eventually misplaced the
    sefer and I do not recall which volume I borrowed.

It was "borrowed", ie no reshus was asked.

    ... [Skipping from opening paragraph to bottom line...]

    Someone who borrowed a sefer without permission is obligated to return
    the sefer, the same as any other thief. Even if the owner despaired
    of retrieving it, e.g., he bought a new set, the obligation to return
    it remains in force (C.M. 354:2 and 360:5). If the sefers condition
    changed dramatically (shinui) or if it was lost altogether, the
    borrower is obligated to repay the value of the sefer (C.M. 360:5).
    
    In your case, since the sefer you borrowed is missing, there is no
    obligation to replace the actual sefer. Your obligation is to repay
    the beis medrash the sefers value at the time you borrowed it. In
    other words, you would pay the value of a used sefer rather than a
    new sefer, and there is no need to pay for a complete set.

But then, maybe that's under Gittin 55b, not making a ganav tear down
his house in order to return a stolen beam he built into it. But
that halakhah is to facilitate teshuvah after theft.

And so I won't generalized.

Also for hezeq, I know a maziq pays for his damage, and therefore only
has to pay replacement value -- what it would take to make things
right again.

But again, your case, a shomer or sho'el returning a lost item, could
be different.

I didn't yet find it. But I haven't entirely given up...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 17:17:45 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] replacement value


On Mon, Jun 08, 2015 at 09:25:43AM -0700, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: secular law  [US] recognizes that one need is not liable replace a lost
: item with a new one...                               what does bais din
: require?


According to the Business Halakhah Institute
<http://businesshalacha.com/en/newsletter/sefer-shul>:
    Many years ago I borrowed a Chumash with commentaries from a local
    beis medrash. I forgot to return it and eventually misplaced the
    sefer and I do not recall which volume I borrowed.

It was "borrowed", ie no reshus was asked.

    ... [Skipping from opening paragraph to bottom line...]

    Someone who borrowed a sefer without permission is obligated to return
    the sefer, the same as any other thief. Even if the owner despaired
    of retrieving it, e.g., he bought a new set, the obligation to return
    it remains in force (C.M. 354:2 and 360:5). If the sefers condition
    changed dramatically (shinui) or if it was lost altogether, the
    borrower is obligated to repay the value of the sefer (C.M. 360:5).
    
    In your case, since the sefer you borrowed is missing, there is no
    obligation to replace the actual sefer. Your obligation is to repay
    the beis medrash the sefers value at the time you borrowed it. In
    other words, you would pay the value of a used sefer rather than a
    new sefer, and there is no need to pay for a complete set.

But then, maybe that's under Gittin 55b, not making a ganav tear down
his house in order to return a stolen beam he built into it. But
that halakhah is to facilitate teshuvah after theft.

And so I won't generalized.

Also for hezeq, I know a maziq pays for his damage, and therefore only
has to pay replacement value -- what it would take to make things
right again.

But again, your case, a shomer or sho'el returning a lost item, could
be different.

I didn't yet find it. But I haven't entirely given up...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 01:52:34 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] 100% Vegetable oils etc.


On Areivim, R' Martin Brody wrote:

> If any such ingredient of an ingredient was non-kosher, it would be
> batel b'shishim, (more likely nullified by thousands). For those
> that are interested, the London Beth Din is not concerned with
> "flavourings" as an ingredient for this very reason.

This surprises me. I would think that non-kosher flavorings cannot be
batel. Bitul is a mathematical procedure by which we can presume that the
non-kosher ingredient is not noticeable. But in the case of flavorings (and
colorings and maamads), if its presence were not noticeable, then the
manufacturer would not go to the trouble and expense of including it.
Therefore (I would think) that its presence proves that it *is* noticable,
overriding the presumption.

Rabbi Binyomin Forst's "The Laws of Kashrus" (ArtScroll) says on page 98,
"If, however, the mixture was sampled and the non-kosher taste was
noticeable, the mixture may not be eaten, even though it was batel
b'shishim. (Shach 98:4)"

What other views are there?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5578ea0af09296a0a79abst01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:41:04 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Worker or Craftsman



How do we view the task of life?

Is a person an po'el, paid for his time? Implying, it's our job to do
good while here on earth, but the determining factor is the duration?

Or is a person an uman, paid to get a particular job done. We're put on
earth to get some specific accomplishment.

The Zohar suggests something more like an uman when it uses an idiom like
"ana avda deQBH". Admittedly an eved does not get paid for his time,
but an eved is for the duration, whether until shemittah, until yovel,
or for the rest of his life.

However, in Shaar haGilgulim we get all this talk about a person having
a tafqid, and how if they fail to get the job done, they could be given
a second chance.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 10:46:39 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Color names


RZLampel and I discused this once, I think here. If not, the topic could
be of interest anyway. So, rather than checking the archive (which is
difficult, given the number of tekheiles discussions) I am just sharing
either way.

-micha

Shabbat B'Shabbato
Translated by Moshe Goldberg
Machon Zomet

...
What Is That Phrase?
Green Sky?
Yaacov Etzion

At the end of this week's Torah portion, we are given a command, "Let them
place on the tzitzit at the corner a thread of 'techelet.'" [Bamidbar
15:38]. Rashi explains that techelet is "the 'yarok' color of a
snail." Any speaker of modern Hebrew can only wonder at this. Why does
Rashi call the blue color of techelet "yarok" -- that is, green?

Well, it is not only Rashi that calls techelet "yarok." It is an
explicit ruling that appears in the Shulchan Aruch: "The color white
is ritually pure, as is the look of 'yarok,' even if it has the look
of wax or of gold. And this certainly includes the 'yarok' of leek or
grass (and also the color that is called 'blue' is included in 'yarok')"
[Hilchot Nidda, 188].

We are not interested at this point in the details of the halacha but
rather in the fact that the RAMA writes that the color "blue" is called
"yarok" in our traditional sources.

Our sages spoke of four main colors: shachor (black), lavan (white),
adom (red), and yarok. And "yarok" included yellow, orange, blue, and
turquoise of today. For example, it happens quite often that a newborn
baby is a bit yellow right after its birth. But the Tosefta calls this
color "yarok." Rabbi Natan says the following: "When I was in the Land
of Kapotakia, there was a woman who had given birth to boys... They
brought him to me, and I saw that he was 'yarok'... I looked at him and
did not find any blood for circumcision..." [Shabbat 134a]. Moreover,
in the wording of the ROSH in his halachic rulings the word yarok as used
by the sages is not our color green (which they call "yarok as a leek")
but is yellow or orange. "This shows that the word yarok is similar to
the yolk of an egg or to gold, which has a tinge of red." Among other
sources, the ROSH bases his decision on the words of the verse, "the
wings of a dove coated with silver and its limbs the 'yerakrak' of gold"
[Tehillim 68:14]. Yerakrak is clearly the color of gold, that is, yellow.

The words for orange (katom) and blue (kachol) were instituted in modern
times by Zeev Yavetz. This was reported by David Yalin in the newspaper
"Hatzevi" in 1887: "When I spoke to my uncle the illustrious rabbi and
investigator Rabbi Zeev Yavetz, he said to me that he wants to fill
what is missing in our language for the names of two colors, the color
of techelet and the color of the yoke of an egg." Yavetz proposed that
techelet should be called kachol and that the yoke should be called
"ketem," which in the holy writings refers to gold or to the color of
gold. (An example appears in the following verse: "Woe, the gold is dim,
the good 'ketem' has changed" [Eichah 4:1].) Yavetz wanted to use the
word katom for the color of yellow (which we call tzahov), since he
felt that tzahov "includes a bit of red" (as per a note by Yalin). But
as time went on, katom became the color orange, as we use it today.

Thus, the word "yarok" changed in meaning during the years, as did
"tzahov." However, "techelet" evidently kept its original meaning,
and it remains similar to the color of the sea, which is similar to the
color of the sky, and this reminds us of the Divine Throne of Glory.



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:34:36 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Worker or Craftsman


On 06/11/2015 10:41 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Is a person an po'el, paid for his time? Implying, it's our job to do
> good while here on earth, but the determining factor is the duration?
>
> Or is a person an uman, paid to get a particular job done. We're put on
> earth to get some specific accomplishment.

Eruvin 65a: Anan po`alei diy'mamei anan.

-- 
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: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:17:46 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Torat Chaim VeAhavat Chesed


On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:27pm I forwarded an essay by RYK that had
appeared on R/Dr Alan Brill's blog, Kavvanah.

In it he proposes from personal experience that MO would be enhanced by
shifting away from its focus on RYBS's Briskkeit and in particular that
elements of his Hungarian Chassidic birth community would be of great
value.

:    Personally, my rejection of the Maimonidean ethos and realization of
:    the degree to which chassidut can speak to the modern searcher was a
:    long and arduous process. It came about as a result of a deep sense
:    of betrayal by Maimonides, the champion of Rationalist Judaism. I for
:    many years was the object and fool of Maimonides "the seventh reason"
:    as presented in his introduction to the Guide by not seeing his
:    philosophic views. In that passage, Maimonides condones misleading
:    the masses for their greater good, even to the point of advocating
:    contradictory ideas for different audiences and then obscuring those
:    contradictions.

:    Growing up in Satmar and then Brisk, I was oblivious to his
:    non-halakhic writings and led to believe that he fully and literally
:    believed every word he wrote in the Yad...

I think it's wrong to think the 7th principle applies to the Yad. While
the Rambam may not have believed every word in the Moreh as it would
seem to someone reading it naively, I do think "he fully and literally
believed every word he wrote in the Yad." And in fact, that was the
whole point of the project -- to outline all of halakhah, to document
the TSBP. Not to hint at something for the meivinim without risking
that the hoi palloi mistake his words in a heretical way. It's simply
not meaningful concept for a book he titled Mishneh Torah.

I am uncomfortably using the Rambam as a poster boy for rationalism. In
the Rambam's day, science hadn't been invented yet. Claims about physics
weren't based on emprical proof and experimental process. It was
Natual Philosophy, and the weight of an a priori argument. A lot of it
really ended up on reliabilism; deeming the Greeks as reliable sources
on such things -- after 1,5000 years of their theories reigning. And
therefore, quite honestly, much the same kind of thought that we use
to accept mesorah.

The word rationalism changed meaning.

What I think we really mean is a willingness to be meqabel es ha'emes
mimi she'omro, rather than take a maximalist attitude toward mesoretic
and Torah-derived statements. But that's quite a bit meta from anyone
today using the Moreh as a foundational element of their hashkafah.


In particular, RYK mentions three items he believes would enhance MO:

:    1) Truth. We live in a post-modern world where objective truth is
:    rejected and absolute claims are frowned upon. I would go as far as to
:    say that rationalism (in the general and colloquial sense) as a source
:    for Emunah is bankrupt, it increasingly speaks to fewer people...

I don't think it ever worked. As one of my favorite truisms goes:
    The mind is a wonderful organ
    for justifying decisions
    the heart already reached. 

People accept the rational argument that fits the experiential
justification that really underlies their beliefs.

Aristo thought otherwise, which eventually led to the Qalam and the
Scholasticists -- including R' Saadia Gaon and the Rambam. But then
Scholasticism collapsed, the scientific method arose, leading to a dispute
between the Empiricists and Idealists which in turn forced the discipline
of philosophy away from belief in the reality of an objective rigorous
proof. Experimental eproof, yes. Incontravertible objective philosopy,
not so much. Kant then gets all transcendental, and talks about the
synthetic a priori. (Knowing things without proof that don't simply boil
down to a matter of translations. In the recent past, I mentioned how
we know the Euclidean posulates hold in flat space, that Reimannian ones
hold in a spherical space, and our knowledge about morality and ethics.)

This was the zeitgeist when the Besh"t lived. (Besh"t 1698-1760;
Kant 1724-1804.)

Someone who is given a proof whose conclusions don't fit their experience
is likely to reject the soundness of the givens / postulates / first
principles on which it's based. Just as someone who accepts a proof is
making synthetic judgments about the quality of the foundations of that
proof before even making an analytic decision that the logic seems sound.

So even if no one makes a logic error, every proof relies on
interpretation of experience.

RYBS was not a rationalist in this sense. Brisk is very experiential,
to the point of eschewing the study of hashkafah altogether. They
are rational when it comes to how to learn, but the value of learning
is in the experience of learning.

When RYBS does do philosophy, he calls it halachic hermeneutics.
Neo-Kantian and Existentialist observations of what halakhah says to
the one following it about life. He makes no claims about the function
or cause of halakhah, he makes few theological observations. For example,
to RYBS tzimtzum speaks mostly to the value of anavah as an emulation
of His "Retreat" to give us room.

RYBS's Neo-Kantianism is a very different project than the Rambam's
Scholasticism.

...
:    However, during those rare occasions when they do pay attention to the
:    biblical "stories," their orientation is a-rational. They absolutely
:    "believe" those stories, but their belief is internal: it is true
:    because it happened in the Torah. That is where these events transpire
:    and that is where these stories matter. Asking about their historicity
:    is, as far as they are concerned, foolish and missing the point.

And also a given. It may not be stated as the point, but the confidence
given to authority which is a necessary component of the rebbe-chassid
relationship means accepting Chazal's historical and scientific claims
as being from ruach haqodesh. And not stam as meshalim.

The kind of agnosticism about the historicity of medrashic material you
are recommending we import Chassidus to justify would itself leave a
chassid aghast. And even after citing the long chain of rishonim and
acharonim who speak against assuming medrashic stories are historical,

And you want to extend that beyond medrashic stories into foundational
stories in Tanakh and maybe in the chumash as well?

Given my above assertion that the only thread that runs consistently
through "rationalism" from the Rambam to today is to choose qabel es
ha'emes mimi she'omro over taking some baal mesorah's statement maximally,
one actually needs what's left of the Rambam's hashkafic legacy to
accomplish this, not Chassidus.

:    2) Spiritualization. As scholars have pointed out, chassidic teachings
:    contain elements of spiritual psychology. They provide us with a
:    language which helps us infuse our lives with meaning. One can point
:    to many examples where this psychological spiritualization occurs in
:    chassidut, I will mention two of them.

:    3) Social Change. One of the most pressing tensions in the community
:    is how to reconcile our values with our convictions; what to do
:    when halakha points us in one direction and our values in another
:    direction. We are tempted to follow our values but pulled to abide by
:    our halakhic commitments....

:    Chassidut is very explicit about the value of religious aggression. The
:    following two quotes are often encountered in chassidic writings,
:    "even a thief says a prayer before he breaks in to his victim's home"
:    (quoted on the margin of Brachot 63A, from the Frankfurt manuscript),
:    and "an aggressive stance towards the Divine bears results" (Sanhedrin
:    105A). While the provenance of these texts is Talmudic, they take on
:    significant prominence in Chassidic theology. They become the impetus
:    for an aggressive theology which is informed by a religiosity that
:    sees itself driven by a Divine immanence which infuses our values and
:    ethical intuitions with spiritual resonance, subsequently leading to
:    radical societal change.

:    Such change is actually an integral part of Chassidic social history.
:    When one looks at recent major changes in traditional Jewish society
:    it is hard not to notice that the forerunners were often Chassidim. The
:    last sixty years have seen far reaching social and political change.

Both of these are not specific to Chassidus, but would be true of any
Ism that draws attention fo the notion that halakhah is merely a "floor"
rather than the sum total of behavioral expectations.

For that matter, self development and societal needs are both more central
to Mussar than chassidus. Pretty much its defning features, really. Which
(aside being my own pony in this race) has the advantage of being closer
to being consistent with MO's current gestalt; it's easier to get from
here to there.

OTOH Chaasidic maximalism means that statements made in the past have
to be accepted as being from ruach haqodesh, and consequently change
in these communities is minimized. Not only because isolation is part of
the survival strategy, but because of reverence for and desire to emulate

Chassidic isolation is indeed part of their survival stategy. It's hard
to leave when you know no other social context and speak with an accent.
And knowing that you stand for something greater than yourself in the
eyes of those who see your uniform makes it harder to sin. (Harder, not
impossible.) But it's not one of the three elements of Chassidus RYK
wrote about.

:    The two most dramatic changes that have happened is that Jews are now
:    sovereign and women have made significant progress in their pursuit of
:    religious equality. The pioneers of both these changes were driven, at
:    least in part, by a chassidic ethos. R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson,
:    the Rebbi of Lubavitch, was one of the first orthodox scholars to
:    champion female Talmud scholarship, while R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook,
:    a serious student of Chassidut, was an outspoken early proponent of
:    a Zionist state.

RAYK is a student of the Leshem, and thus of the Gra's school of Qabbalah.
Not Chassidus.

You might be able to make a more generic argument for a need for more
Qabbalah in MO. Personally, I'm an engineer by inclination, not just
training, and my own head doesn't lean that way. Although I had more
success with the Leshem Haqdamos uShe'arim, which incidentally heavily
draws from the Moreh and Yesodei haTorah, than I did with Qela"ch
Pischei Chokhmah, the later parts of Derekh H' or Tomer Devorah after
ch. 1.

At least in the golah this might be true; in Israel, those of the DL
community who are an appropriate audience for Qabbalah already have RAYK
in numerous interpretations.

Also, Chassidus's approach to Qabbalah puts the Ari Za"l on an even
higher pedestal than the Gra did, and elevate R Chaim Vital from *a*
talmid of the Ari to his sole authorized presenter. The Gra is willing
to question something from RCV that chassidim would literally consider
Torah min haShamayim.

Which, for the more socially and humanistically minded, might well turn
Eitz Chaim 49 ch. 3
<http://www.kab.co.il/heb/content/view/frame/30236?/heb/conte
nt/view/full/30236&;main>
into a show stopper. (But this isn't the place to discuss it.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:48:02 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Torat Chaim VeAhavat Chesed


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 2:17 I wrote:
: What I think we really mean is a willingness to be meqabel es ha'emes
: mimi she'omro, rather than take a maximalist attitude toward mesoretic
: and Torah-derived statements. But that's quite a bit meta from anyone
: today using the Moreh as a foundational element of their hashkafah.
...
: Given my above assertion that the only thread that runs consistently
: through "rationalism" from the Rambam to today is to choose qabel es
: ha'emes mimi she'omro over taking some baal mesorah's statement maximally...

The thought hit me this morning that there is another and drastically
different way to view this point.

"Qabel es ha'ames mimi she'omro" is a bit of a circularity. Obviously
we want to accept the truth from whomever says it, and not errors.
So we're deciding what is true /before/ we decide to accept it, not
/because/ we accept it.

We could therefore say that the single consistent theme we associate
with throwing the word "rationalism" about is critical thought. When
we judge Aristo's, Copernicus's, Darwin's or Einstein's thought as
true, do we second guess that asessment, or accept their ideas as
true?

And consequently we can phrase this chiluq a third way: As being abut
how much authority we give rabbinic works in comparison to how much
we trust our own critical thinking. The higher the pedestal we put the
historical rabbinate, the more of their statements one would logically
choose to suspend judgment and accept.

(Not only accept, but accept as literal.)


As for the original premise... Rather than looking to RYK's or anyone
else's ideas as to what from Chassidus would most benefit MO, perhaps
we should look at the Neo-Chassidic phenomenon to see de facto what MO
Jews who are open to such experimentation are drawn to.

And if those two questions yeild different answers, why?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:55:24 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What FDA Learned About Dark Chocolate and Milk


On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 05:43:32AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Areivim wrote:
: This story came out here a few years ago when some kid had an
: allergic reaction to parve chocolate. The product had a Badatz Eida
: Chareidit heksher. The heksher was fine, they didn't make a mistake.
: The amount of milk in the chocolate was much, much less than 1/60.

Assuming the allergic reaction isn't lifethreatening so that the
child is not prohibited from eating the chocolate on those grounds...

Say they're a chocoholic and chose to eat the chocolate shortly
after eating meat. Mi ma nafshach for everyone else it's batel.
But do we say that since for them it's detectible, bitul doesn't
apply?

:-)BBii!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 21:24:59 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What FDA Learned About Dark Chocolate and Milk


[Another Areivim email from the same thread. -micha]

> Actually it sounds to me that one very much can rely on the
> label (from this example). The trace amounts [the LBD are] talking
> about are much, much less than 1/60. Completely bateil,
> totally parve, but enough to elicit an allergic reaction.

I remember learning about a machlokes concerning whether we hold dairy
can be batel to pareve, or whether we say that since there is no loss (at
least, not the total loss that we have when something becomes nonkosher)
we should simply consider it dairy. But I don't remember how we hold on
this issue. Anyone else?

And shouldn't these questions be on Avodah?

Akiva Miller

[Done. -micha]



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 14:01:48 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] If and When


R' Yishmael famously (Mechilta BaChodesh-Yisro 11, Mishpatim 182 or
<http://j.mp/1SbnwEg>) says that "im" usually means that the decision
is up to you, but three times it's a chiyuv:
    - "Im mizbach avanim ta'aseh Li" (Shemos 20:21)
    - "Im kesef talveh es ami" (Shemos 22:24)
    - "Im taqriv minchas bikurim" (Vayiqra 2:14)

This is often explained in English as saying that "im" usually means "if",
but in these cases it takes on the rarer second meaning of "when".

I would prefer to propose a single common interpretation.

LAD, "im" introduces an implication -- X implies Y.

When X is a conditional, then so will the Y that depends on it.

When X is always obligated, then Y will also be always obligated,
but the "allways" is because X is.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Eliot


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



_______________________________________________
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 >