Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 96

Tue, 07 Jul 2015

• 1. Dan leKaf Zekhus (Micha Berger)
• 2. Torah and Poverty (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Be among the talmidim of Aharon ()
• 4. Re: Kaddish Yasom (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: kiddush levana (Zev Sero)
• 6. Pinechas vs Pinchas (David and Esther Bannett)
• 7. kesher (Eli Turkel)
• 8. ..v'imru amen (M Cohen)
• 9. Re: kesher (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Pinechas vs Pinchas (Mandel, Seth)
• 11. Re: kesher (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: kesher (Micha Berger)
• 13. Rambam, Moreh Nevuchim (2:29), A Strange Passage about Miracles (H Lampel)

When I got on the subway this morning, there was a pregnant woman already
standing holding on to the poll nearest the door I just came in through.

So, feeling all heroic, I asked her quite loudly and pointedly, "Do you
need me to embarass someone into getting up for you?"

She replied, "No, thank you. A number of people offered when I just
got on, but I was more comfortable standing than on the train's benches."

I blushed, and sheepishly muttered apologies to those around us.

As I said: Dan lekaf zekhus. Not just the law, a good idea.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 7/3/2015 3:16 AM, RnTK wrote to Areivim:
: But our mishna does describe this as the "way of the Torah."
: True Torah scholars will live contentedly under conditions of
: denial and poverty.

The beraisa (Avos "6":4) says that darkah shel Torah is not to quit
learning even if you have to live off bread, salt and water you have to
ration, sleep on the ground and otherwise suffer.

Not that this is their normal condition, or even one they should desire.

There is still the take on the chatas of someone ending nezirus (Rabbeinu
Bachya, in contrast to the Ramban) that it's for forgoing permissable
pleasure while a nazir.

And the Y-mi (Qiddushin 4:12, vilna 48b, the end of the mesechta) in
which Rav is quoted as saying "A person will have to give a din vecheshbon
on anything his eye saw but he didn't eat. R' Leizer [Elazar? Eliezer?]
was chosheish for this, and would use Shabbos to enjoy one such pleasure.

This is on the mishnah where R' Nera'i promises to only teach his son
Torah, to the exclusion of a profession. But the Y-mi understands this
to mean that keeping the Torah (not learning in particular) will provide
wealth. Whereas a profession leaves you stuck in your old age, or if one
otherwise become unable to work. But it's "vekhein atah motzei be'avinu
Avraham *sheshimer* es haTorah" and was wealthy.

However, the Bavli famously reports that this was tried experimentally
and it generally doesn't work. Okay for a R' Shimon bar Yochai, but
not R' Yishmael and the like. (Which could be a difference in kind or
quantitative.)

No one today would qualify as either a Rashbi or a R' Yishmael, so I
don't think the Y-mi's promise should be counted on.

And neither gemara lauds poverty.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 

From: Lisa Liel via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

The sheer vitriol I've seen from  Orthodox Jews over the past days since
the Supreme Court decision making  same-sex civil marriage the law of
the land in the United States has been  overwhelming.  And I just don't
get it.  And it's part and parcel  of the viciousness I've seen from so
many otherwise loving frum Jews over the  years when it comes to  this
subject.


Lisa





>>>>
 
I have seen none of that "vitriol" or "viciousness," either in the past few 
 days or in the last few years, or ever.  On the contrary, all I see is an  
almost desperate attempt to be conciliatory, a desperate if hopeless wish 
not to  be the *victims* of liberal, anti-religious vitriol.  
 
See for example "A Letter by Reb Ahron Feldman to a Gay Baal Teshuva"
 
https://guardyoureyes.com/resources/ssa/item/a
-letter-by-reb-ahron-feldman-to-a-gay-baal-teshuva
 
Also see Agudath Israel's statement on the recent Supreme Court  
gay-marriage decision
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2015/06/28/agudath-israel-s
tatement-o
n-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/
 
It reads, in part, "we are deeply concerned that, as a result of today?s  
ruling, and as the dissenting Justices have pointed out, members and  
institutions of traditional communities like the Orthodox Jewish community we  
represent may incur moral opprobrium and risk tangible negative consequence if  
they refuse to transgress their beliefs, and even if they simply teach and  
express their religious views publicly." 
 
I might add that Lisa's post, being an emotional cri de coeur, really 
belongs on Areivim.  However,  since she has posted it to Avodah, I will add my 
own comments previously posted  on Cross-Currents:
 
Here, for the record, is what our ancient Torah heritage has to say about  
homosexual marriage: 
The nations are allowed to continue in existence only because they keep a  
minimum of three mitzvos. These are: not writing marriage documents for the  
union of two males, not selling human flesh in the market place, and giving 
 honor to the Torah?which in practice means, not persecuting the people of 
the  Torah, the Jewish people. 
In one of his prophetic visions, the Navi (prophet) Zechariah took thirty  
pieces of silver and threw them into the Temple treasury in Jerusalem 
(Zechariah  11:13). The Rabbis of the Talmud had varying interpretations of what 
this vision  symbolized. According to Rabbi Ulla (Talmud Chullin 92B), the 
thirty pieces of  silver symbolized the thirty mitzvos that the Bnei Noach 
accepted upon  themselves. These thirty mitzvos include not worshipping idols, 
not consulting  witchcraft and sorcery, refraining from illicit sexual 
relationships, and so on.  (Bnei Noach are the Sons of Noah, also called Noahides?
i.e., the nations of the  world.) 
Rabbi Ulla says that the world continues to exist because the nations  
accepted these thirty mitzvos. However, he adds, the nations do not keep all the 
 mitzvos they accepted. They keep only three, and one of the three is: ?
They do  not write a marriage contract for males.? Rashi comments that the 
nations do  engage in forbidden homosexual relations, but they at least 
acknowledge that  such relations are illicit by not formalizing those relations in 
legal  documents. 
The other two commandments that they keep are that they do not sell human  
flesh in the market place, and that they give honor to the Torah (Talmud 
Chullin  92B). 
Elsewhere the Rabbis of old stated that the final decree of destruction, 
the  Great Flood, was sealed against the generation of Noach because they 
wrote  marriage documents for males. ?Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi 
Yosef, ?The  generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage 
documents  for the union of a man to a male or to an animal ? ? (Genesis 
Rabbah 26:5;  Leviticus Rabbah 23:9). 
Implicit is the assumption that if the nations do not abide by at least the 
 aforementioned three mitzvos, they may forfeit the very right to exist. 
Hence,  these three?not writing marriage documents for males, not selling 
human flesh in  the marketplace, and honoring the Torah?may be considered the 
Three Conditions  for the continued existence of mankind. 
So you see, the idea of gay marriage is not new, not a fresh idea that  
represents the ultimate development, enlightenment and evolution of mankind. 
No,  the formal marriage of two men is a very ancient idea that represents the 
 degradation of mankind. 
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2011/07/28/4524/ 
I will add a further point to what I wrote in 2011: 
The reason the gay pride movement adopted rainbow colors as their symbol is 
 that the rainbow is the sign of Hashem?s promise not to wipe out the 
entire  world again in one big flood. They wave the rainbow flag in defiance of 
Him, as  if to say, ?Ha ha, You can?t touch us!? The message of the rainbow 
flag is, ?We  are major sinners, like the generation of the Flood.? But 
they are whistling in  the dark if they think there won?t be consequences. May 
Hashem protect His  people, those who are chassidei umos ha?olam as well as 
us, Klal Yisrael. 

Read  more: 
http://www.cross-currents.c
om/archives/2015/06/29/scotus-on-same-gender-what-it-means-what-it-doesnt/#
ixzz3f9x0mazM  





--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150706/4aac9f01/attachment-0001.htm>

I noted about Kaddish Yasom
> From what I've seen, it is NOT said even if a minyan says Birkas
> Hamazon,

R' Zev Sero asked:

> Why would it?

Well, I guess my original post should have had a longer introduction. I
know that Kaddish Tiskabel has a very clear rule, namely that it follows
every Amidah, and the only exception is that it also follows Selichos.
Kaddish D'rabanan always follows group learning (though I've never figured
out exactly what learning counts and what doesn't).

And now I'm trying to figure out the rule for Kaddish Yasom. It SEEMS to be
a sort of "congregational prayer", where "prayer" is something *other* than
the Amidah, but I can't define it any more precisely than that. For a long
time I thought it was connected to Tehillim, but when I noticed it after
the megilos on Yom Tov, someone suggested that it's not specifically Sefer
Tehillim, but *any* part of Kesuvim, not that we had any idea why Kesuvim
would get this distinction over Neviim or Torah.

I wrote:
> but it IS said when a minyan says Kiddush Levana.

RZS suggested:
> Probably because people are used to saying it after Alenu.

Maybe, and maybe not. I have a suspicion that Alenu was added *because of*
the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are some data points: The
Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with
nothing at all after it. My Minchas Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end
with Tehillim 67 which is then followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is
it possible that Alenu is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana?

I wrote:
> It is NOT said when a minyan says Tehillim even as an organized
> group,

RZS asked:
> Where have you seen it not being said then?  I'm surprised that
> this is your experience.

In my current community, and also from my memories of yeshiva. When there
was some sort of tzara that we said Tehillim for -- whether for a choleh,
or some military or political problem -- we would say the Tehillim deemed
appropriate by the leaders, and this would be followed by tefillos such as
Acheinu and/or Mi Sheberach(s). I don't recall Kaddish ever being part of
this.

I have to admit that a big part of my asking this question is a pet peeve
that I've been nursing, regarding Kiddush Levana in particular. It seems to
me that Kiddush Levana -- the way it is done in just about every situation
I've ever seen -- cannot be called a Tefilas Tzibur in any sense. It is a
group of yechidim who happen to be saying the same thing, but in a totally
disorganized fashion. The first one out of shul begins as soon as he finds
a good location, and the last one out of shul also begins when he finds a
good location. No attempt whatsoever is made to get this group to be on the
same page, let alone in the same paragraph. There is no leader (like we
have in Hallel and Pesukei Dzimra and everywhere else) who lets everyone
know what the group is up to, so that they might end in unison. Rather, one
person ends Alenu out loud, and that's when the yesomim say kaddish,
regardless of whether they are only halfway though, or already finished
before.

So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/559b2834173228336fdfst03vuc

On 07/06/2015 09:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> So that's one of the reasons why I'm wondering why Kiddush Levana gets a kaddish.

Well, I found what may be the source for this kaddish.  The Shelah says "There is
a nice minhag in the kingdom of EY and its surroundings, to say various pesukim and
maamarim after kiddush levana, and then say kaddish derabanan [...] and the meaning
of this kaddish is that [the Name] should be magnified and sanctified, a Great Name,
a full Name, and then the moon's light will be as the sun's light".
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45685&;pgnum=287


> I have a suspicion that Alenu was added
> *because of*  the Kaddish, and not the other way around. Here are
> some data points: The Hirsch siddur has Tehillim 67 as the last
> paragraph of Kiddush Levana, with nothing at all after it. My Minchas
> Yerushalayim, and Birnbaum too, end with Tehillim 67 which is then
> followed by Kaddish Yasom, without Alenu. Is it possible that Alenu
> is a recent addition to the Kiddush Levana?

Taamei Haminhagim gives a reason for saying Alenu, because it was written by
Yehoshua, whose face is compared to the moon (Bava Basra 75a).   According
to this reason there would seem to be no reason to say it after birkas hachama.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&;pgnum=216

But the footnote to Kuntres Acharon on the next page gives a different reason:
Because kiddush levana looks like a pagan ritual, we say Alenu to declare that
we worship only Hashem, and this is the same reason that after Hoshanos, which
also seems a bit pagan, we declare "Lema'an daas kol amei ha'aretz ki Hashem hu
haElokim, ein od".   This reason applies equally to birkas hachama.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&;pgnum=217

I remember hearing that the same reason is why we say Alenu after a bris, but
I can't find a source for this.  Taamei Haminhagim cites Yaavetz that the reason
is to include the baby among the "us" who are declaring our loyalty to Hashem.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14556&;pgnum=404


-- 
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

R' Micha points out that his grandfather's name was Pinechas. He proves
it first by the yud after the pei which, by the rules of dikduk, makes
the following sheva a na'. In addition, the name is an Egyptian one,
Pi-nechas, pi being a common prefix in Egyptian names. In case you
haven't been convinced yet, there is a meteg in the pei which, by the
rules, makes the chirik malei and the sheva na'

There is, however, one small point that makes me wonder. R' Aharon
ben Asher who, for the last thousand years, has been called the accepted
decision maker on correct spelling in Tana"kh seems to disagree. In perek
11 of his book Dikdukei Hat'amim he describes the sh'vaim before the otyot
g'roniot inside a word, when they are na' and when nach. Included in his
list of words where they are nach are laqkhu, barchu, Pinchas, zar'u, etc.

IIRC, not all manuscripts have all the words and Pinchas might be omitted
in some. It is possible that copiers of the words lists added or omitted.

On the Mesorah sub-list it is known that I am anti-dikduk because it
opens the way to change the fine points on Torah pronunciation to match
its rules. Among these "improvements" was the changing of many internal
sh'vaim in words from nach to na'. What enabled this to happen was the
brilliant invention by R' Yosef Kimchi of the ten vowel, five pairs of
malei and chaseir. This led to the rule that after malei the sh'va is na'
and after chaseir it is nach.

Ben Asher, in perek 10 notes that there are seven vowels in Hebrew.
All of the masoretes also state this. If there aren't pairs of malei and
chaseir, we've just lost the rule about the following sh'vaim. All this
is not something new. Heidenheim in his comments on the Ein Hakorei
of RYHB"Y (Shemini, just before sh'lishi) states that in the times
of the kadmonim many sh'vaim that are now na'im were then nachim. He
quotes (from Ibn Ezra?) that kol sh'va b'ot rafah shekadam lo echad
mishiv'at ham'lakhim hu nach ki halashon ha-ivrit kasha la r'difat
shalosh t'nu'ot...except for double letters and some words with groniot.

So how should I lein on Shabbos? Oh, no problem, I'm not the bal-koire.

bivrakha,
David

The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper
connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little
farfetched

1) knot
2) connection
3) conspiracy

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150707/cef648ee/attachment-0001.htm>

In various places in dovening, kaddish etc we find the loshon - ..v'imru
amen.
Simply understood this is something only said by a sh'ztibur, 
as an announcement by the sh'ztibur that the congregation sh answer amen.

In some cases, a yachid says it (ie Kiddush hachodesh, etc) probably 
bc we are saying something that originally was said by the sh'ztibur.

What I don't understand is at the end of our silent s'esrai.
Why do we say oseh sholom b'mromav..v'imru amen? 
Who are we saying v'imru amen to?

And I don't think it's there bc the silent SE sbe exactly the same
as the sh'ztibur version (since the silent SE is a rehearsal).

Because the silent SE is not a carbon copy of the sh'ztibur version
(for instance - no elokai netzor, SE of fast days are diff, etc)

Mordechai Cohen
mco...@touchlogic.com

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper
: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little
: farfetched

: 1) knot
: 2) connection
: 3) conspiracy

Interestingly, the noun doesn't show in chumash. As an adjective, we have
hamuqsharos/im, to describe which of the tzon Yaaqov received (30:41-42).
Rashi quotes the Targum, "habechiros" and cites two pesuqim in Shemuel
II pereq 15.

To round out the list:
About Yaaqov (again) and Yoseif, "venafsho qesurah benafsho." Also
the string tied on Zarach's hand, and tefillin (x2). Those are all the
occurances of the shoresh.

BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary
meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates.

Conspiracy comes up in #2, "league together, conspire". It would seem
they conjecture the word comes from the collaboration, and less so
what they're connecting to eachother to plan against something.

They also cite "vatiqasheir kol-hachimah" in Nechemiah 3:35, where one
would not readily picture "tying together" parts as a metaphor.

I understand why Rashi thought the translation in Bereishis 30 is
unique enough to require comment, but not how it fits altogether.
(Rashi says it does, not how.)

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

It should be noted that how Pinechas was read according to the Masorah is
not really relevant to the way it was pronounced as a name. Pinchas is a
Yiddish name (to be sure, with its roots in Hebrew), and is pronounced
without a het and without a sh'wa. Its pronunciation in Hebrew is no
more relevant than is the proper pronunciation of the word gannav (theif)
in the T'NaKh to the pronunciation of the Yiddish word ganef.

Rabbi Dr. Seth Mandel
Rabbinic Coordinator
The Orthodox Union
11 Broadway, New York, NY  10004

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings. Is there any deeper
>: connection between them besides the more obvious which is a little
>: farfetched

>: 1) knot
>: 2) connection
>: 3) conspiracy
...
> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary
> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates.

and what is the connection to a knot
(the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit)

On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 05:22:56PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 03:21:39PM +0300, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:>: The word kesher in Hebrew has several meetings...
: ...
:> BDB http://www.greeklatin.narod.ru/bdb/_0923.htm says that the primary
:> meaning is to bind, citing Syriac and Ethiopic cognates.

: and what is the connection to a knot
: (the origin of the question was a dvar torah on the knots of tsizit)

Well, tzitzis knots less so, but knots generally bind two strings or two
ends of a string together, no?

Tzitzis knots are somewhat more like the example from Nechemiah. If
qesher includes "batiqashar kol-hachomah", perhaps it also it includes
binding pesilim into a gedil.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In Moreh Nevuchim, 2:29, the Rambam seems to disparage a talmudical
position about miracles that he had endorsed in his prior works
(Commentary on Avos 5:6 and Shmoneh Perakim chapter 8). This, despite
the fact that in the Moreh, he refers the reader to these former works to
understand his position about miracles. And to further confuse matters,
in the Moreh itself, within just a few sentences, he goes on to laud
the proponent of that very positionfor maintaining it!

The position is that already during the Creation week, G-d instilled,
in objects and forces of nature, the potential for the aberrant behaviors
that He would unleash when appropriate. (I.e. the aberrant behaviors were
not changes G-d first decided upon, created and imposed upon things at
the time the miracles were witnessed.)

The Moreh Nevuchim introduces the concept with the words: "Our Sages said
things zarrim m'od as regards miracles." "zarrim m'od" is Ibn Tibbon's
Hebrew translation. Narboni and Schwartz use the similar "muzarrim, and
likewise, Friedlander and Pines, in their English translations, translate,
"very strange." KPCH translates, "temuhim" (astonishing). They all seem
to indicate that the Rambam shunned the idea.

Yet, as I noted, just a few sentences later, the Rambam lauds the Tanna
who expressed the thought:

    [T]his text...demonstrates the [high] level of the speaker, and
    its being very difficult in his eyes that Nature could change
    after Creation, or that G-d's Will would change after it had been
    established. He therefore reasons, for example, that G-d instilled,
    in the nature of Water, the [property of] sticking together and always
    flowing in a downward direction, except for that time in which the
    Egyptians would drown in them; those specific waters would split.

    I have already enlightened you as to the main idea of the [talmudic]
    statement [KPCH in a footnote sees this as a reference to the Rambam's
    commentary on the Mishnah and Shemoneh Perakim], and that it is all
    meant to flee from [the idea that, after Creation, G-d would bring
    about] the new creation of anything.

    It says there: R. Yonathan said, G-d placed stipulations on the sea,
    that it should divide before the Israelites. Thus it says, "And the
    sea returned, when the morning appeared, l'ay-sa-no [to its strength,
    or to its stipulated nature]"(Sh'mos 14:27). R. Yiremiyah ben Elazar
    said: Not only with the sea did the Holy One, blessed be He, place
    stipulations, but with all that has been created in the six days
    of Creation. "My hands stretched out the heavens, and all their
    hosts I commanded" (Yishayahu 45:12): I commanded the sea that it
    will divide, the fire that it should not harm Hananiah, Mishael,
    and Azariah, and the lions that they should not harm Daniel, and
    the fish that it should spit out Jonah."

The same is to be applied to all the other miracles.

The surprising solution to this problem is really quite simple. I
noticed that in Moreh 1:70 (p. 106 in the classic version, line 2),
Pines translates a certain phrase as "strange but true."But both Ibn
Tibbon and Schwartz translate it, "ha-inyanim ha-mufla-os ha-n'chonos,
("matters wondrous but true/correct").

Hmmm. One Arabic scholar translates a word as "strange," while others
translate it as "wondrous." I began to sense how the same word could
be used both ways, and I suspected it might also be the same word as in
our passage in 2:29.

Without mentioning my problem about the Rambam's self-contradiction
(to keep the issue unbiased), I asked R. Yakov Wincelberg, translator of
Avraham ben HaRambam's Sefer HaMaspik from Arabic to English, what the
actual Arabic word there is, and if it's the same word in our passage
in 2:29.

Here is his reply:

    In both cases, the word griva is used. It doesn't mean specifically
    "weird," but something that stands out. It could be: extraordinary,
    wondrous, amazing, rare, peculiar, uncommon, obscure, etc. It even
    is used for emigrating from one's country, as one is separating from
    the people.

In other words, the word means "outstanding." So, true, one tends to
understand the translation "zar" or "strange" to be meant in the sense of
"weird," or "foreign," indicating that in the Moreh the Rambam considered
the "front-loaded" miracle an idea to be shunned--contra the Gemora,
his Avos commentary, and his Shemoneh Perakim. But the simpler truth is
that the Rambam consistently endorsed this view, and considered it to
be an outstanding one.

One need only realize that Ibn Tibbon titles his dictionary of unfamiliar
philosophical terms,appended to his Moreh Nevuchim translation, "Payrush
Me'Hamillot Zarot," The word Zar indicates something unfamiliar, but
not necessarily "strange" in the sense of "weird." And it can also mean
something that is wondrous and true.

Zvi Lampel



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



_______________________________________________
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.)