Audio - Pronunciation According to Rabbi Bar Hayyim
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
hayyim. (that's daweed, not the arabic, dawud)
http://www.archive.org/details/TrueHebrewPronounciation
He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
Not sure about what the vowels are based on.
Micha Berger
> this is how to pronounce hebrew, from a student of rabbi daweed bar
> hayyim. (that's daweed, not the arabic, dawud)
> http://www.archive.org/details/TrueHebrewPronounciation
> He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
But it's wrong to think there was ever only one correct Hebrew
pronunciation.
Babylonian custom for the undotted beged kefe"t letters was to aspirate
them. As in the English difference between /w/ in "witch" and /wh/ in
"which" (in the ideal, I don't know too many people who actually make
this distinction, at least not in this part of the world).
However, we know the frictive version he teaches "veth", "thav", etc....
is equally old. It's clearly assumed by the gemara, where we are warned
not to run "eisev besadekha" together. Which doesn't fit /v/ + /b/ but
does fit "eisebh besadekha".
It's hard to know what R' Saadia Gaon meant, but I disagree with his
interpretation of a number of his identification. In particular, his
intent WRT the sound of an undotted gimmel is a heated debate among
Yemenites. To pick one rather than the other and claiming R' Saadia's
authority is a bit oversimplified. But just as the start: his alef is not
R' Saadia Gaon's. The recording identifies the alef with the vowel under
(or over or after) it. Whereas RSG clearly gives it a sound.
And even back in the book of Judges, Ephramites used the "sin" sound used
by other tribes for both "sin" and what we call "shin". Which is how
"shibboleth" became a useful password -- it highlighted the Ephramite
accent.
I think the whole notion of trying to restore "the correct accent"
is misguided.
He also doesn't understand halachic process. His comment to the kollenik
in #5 ("True Hebrew 4") means he think the primary role of halachic
process is to determine truth. But a legal process is about determining
law; as long as it doesn't contradict truth or violate the process, the
conclusion is correct.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 29th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 4 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Hod: When is submitting to another
Fax: (270) 514-1507 an act of kindness?
yaco...@aol.com
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > this is how to pronounce hebrew, from a student of rabbi daweed bar
> > hayyim. (that's daweed, not the arabic, dawud)
> >http://www.archive.org/details/TrueHebrewPronounciation
> > He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
>
> But it's wrong to think there was ever only one correct Hebrew
> pronunciation.
It is equally wrong to assume that every pronunciation by modern Jews
is within the set of correct pronunciations.
This is an effort to introduce some standards into Hebrew.
It may not be that intellignet, but the idea is worthwhile.
> And even back in the book of Judges, Ephramites used the "sin" sound used
> by other tribes for both "sin" and what we call "shin". Which is how
> "shibboleth" became a useful password -- it highlighted the Ephramite
> accent.
> I think the whole notion of trying to restore "the correct accent"
> is misguided.
If your thought is to legitmize non-Semitic consonants and mixing of
vav and "vet", qof and kaf, teth and taf,
and khaf and heth, then I do not see how that helps anyone.
Au contraire it makes it impossible to have an Oral tradition.
> He also doesn't understand halachic process. His comment to the kollenik
> in #5 ("True Hebrew 4") means he think the primary role of halachic
> process is to determine truth. But a legal process is about determining
> law; as long as it doesn't contradict truth or violate the process, the
> conclusion is correct.
Only conclusions of a court are "correct". All esle is guesswork as to
what a court may do. Guesswork is not jurisprudence.
Guesswork is a best guess, and not binding, obviously.
If you think "halakic process" includes such guesswork by "great
minds", that notion also misunderstands halakha.
> Tir'u baTov!
Not until ad shetir'e be'emeth.
> -Micha
Jacko
in...@rambam.biz
interested me most:
http://www.jewgle.us/alphabet.mp3
As I was listening to this, I thought "Oh look, this sounds like the
Jacko pronunciation". Not that that's bad.
I like making aleph more of a glottal stop, and saying tsadi "ts"
rather than "thawdi" as he does. But I like how he differentiates
between "kaf" and "quf, and how he does the last letter of the
alphabet without a dagesh like "th" instead of "s", like it is in
Yiddish.
I got clued in to this by my friend Ilan, an Israeli diamond dealer at
Keheilat Ahavat Kesef who majored in Arabic at college in Jerusalem.
Seems to me that the worst way is the Americanized Hebrew
pronuncation, which pronounces Hebrew like American English, which is
mostly what I hear in the N.Y.C burbs. Less bad is the modern Israeli
pronunciation. But seems to me that even the modern Israeli
pronunciation is not the best way to read Biblical Hebrew, which most
people don't want to believe. Simcha
Leon
<jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63de469b-bc50-4922...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That's some DYNAMIC delivery!
Leon
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > this is how to pronounce hebrew, from a student of rabbi daweed bar
> > hayyim. (that's daweed, not the arabic, dawud)
> >http://www.archive.org/details/TrueHebrewPronounciation
> > He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
>
> But it's wrong to think there was ever only one correct Hebrew
> pronunciation.
>
I heard a similar argument from a charedi cousin..
He said - Maybe both Oh and Ay and Oy are correct for Cholem..
Thing is, if that is the case, then I would expect we would have some
community somewhere with a tradition that the Cholem has those
different pronunciations..
rabbi bar hayyim does criticise the ashkenazi pronunciation of cholem.
> Babylonian custom for the undotted beged kefe"t letters was to aspirate
> them. As in the English difference between /w/ in "witch" and /wh/ in
> "which" (in the ideal, I don't know too many people who actually make
> this distinction, at least not in this part of the world).
>
You picked an interesting example there, one that coincides with the
convention of h to soften. (of course, bh and gh are conventions for v
and r respectively in the BGDKFT letters) BTW, I know one woman that
did say Hwhich, I think she was from Wales.
Your point is completely irrelevant though.
Whether people in the world speaking english, distinguish between hard
and soft letters , has no bearing on whether one should in hebrew.
And you already do for BGKPT
note- I know.. some yemenites pronounce the soft gimmel - the gh, as
J. you mention it later too. I go into that..
> However, we know the frictive version he teaches "veth", "thav", etc....
> is equally old. It's clearly assumed by the gemara, where we are warned
> not to run "eisev besadekha" together. Which doesn't fit /v/ + /b/ but
> does fit "eisebh besadekha".
>
err.. are you saying the gemara doesn't have vowels so there is a
question as to whether a letter is a bet/vet, in the point it makes ?
either way, you can say the words without running them together. Just
pause in between them.
> It's hard to know what R' Saadia Gaon meant, but I disagree with his
> interpretation of a number of his identification. In particular, his
> intent WRT the sound of an undotted gimmel is a heated debate among
> Yemenites. To pick one rather than the other and claiming R' Saadia's
> authority is a bit oversimplified. But just as the start: his alef is not
> R' Saadia Gaon's. The recording identifies the alef with the vowel under
> (or over or after) it. Whereas RSG clearly gives it a sound.
>
I had spoken to him (i.e. I spoke to the student of rabbi bar hayyim),
about the Gimmel.
He said that the yemenites cannot be correct in pronouncing soft
gimmel as J.
He said G and J are spoken with tongue in/touching a completely
different part of the mouth.
The pattern with all the BGDKFT letters is the hard and soft are
pronounced from the same point of the mouth.
So G for hard gimmel, and R for soft gimmel..
I am not sure that R is derived from that argument, but it is
consistent with it.
note- as far as this subject is concerned.. JNC learnt a bit about
pronunciation and tongue in different parts of the mouth.. From a book
by rabbi aryeh kaplan on sefer yetzirah. I learnt of it from a book
Josh mentioned once, called "how the hebrew language grew".
> And even back in the book of Judges, Ephramites used the "sin" sound used
> by other tribes for both "sin" and what we call "shin". Which is how
> "shibboleth" became a useful password -- it highlighted the Ephramite
> accent.
>
Was years ago when I learnt it second hand, but I remember it as being
because they couldn't pronounce a sound correctly. So it was used to
catch them..
> I think the whole notion of trying to restore "the correct accent"
> is misguided.
>
do you think the saadya gaon was misguided?
there is a bit of a difference between pronounciation and accent. An
israeli speaks english with an accent - but not an english accent. And
he might not say his israeli accent is wrong when speaking whatever
language. But he would not call it a pronunciation, that , he would
admit, is wrong.
> He also doesn't understand halachic process. His comment to the kollenik
> in #5 ("True Hebrew 4") means he think the primary role of halachic
> process is to determine truth. But a legal process is about determining
> law; as long as it doesn't contradict truth or violate the process, the
> conclusion is correct.
>
This is where JNC asks the kollel guy, ..
Suppose there were some people that somehow ended up in a place where
there were no other jews. And in the last few hundred years, developed
some pronunciation of hebrew that we know to be completely wrong.. The
Tet they pronounce as a Yud, the Bet they pronounce as a Kaf. You name
it, they have it mixed up
When they leave, and come in contact with other jews, that may not
have a perfect pronounciation, but they know that a Bet is a B, a Peh
is a P.
So, according to halacha, When should they switch? Do they have to
switch? Or should they never switch - should they continue in this
completely mistaken pronunciation forever.
The kollel guy said they should continue forever.
I would add.. A neturei karta type I spoke to once said (not speaking
for sephardim). That ashkenazim cannot change the way we pronounce
hebrew. Because custom is as strong as law.
So as far as that .. The kollel guy is making the halachic statement
about hebrew pronunciation.
Then, JNC gives a halacha related to pronouncing letters correctly.
He mentions that in the shulchan aruch, there is a law that if you do
not pronounce aleph and ayin correctly, you cannot lead the
davening.
(of course, ashkenazim would look at the rema). The Rema, says that if
nobody can pronounce it correctly, then we still have to have
somebody, so you look for somebody that is worthy in other ways)
So according to the Rema, there is a correct pronunciation of Aleph
and Ayin, distinguishing them.. And ideally, we should be able to
distinguish them.
And if possible, then the person davening for the omed should
pronounce them correctly..
One thing JNC didn't mention was the shema example.. Lisa (another
student of rabbi bar hayyim) has mentioned it. Lengthening the
Echad, is only possible with the soft daled. That the daled without a
dot, is pronounced like the TH in THe wheTHer.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
I'm not in marketing.
By the way.. When using text to communicate with him on this subject,
there is a slight problem.. You americans are a bit difficult.
I was trying to ask him whether there is any difference between the
ashkenazi kamatz, and the sephardi cholem.
Me, living in britain, hearing some ashkenazi accents, I can't see a
difference.
But I cannot even find words that in american, make the ashkenazi
kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
But you americans pronounce that like a sheep.
Even the dock in hickery dickery dock.. I can see you americans would
pronounce it dar k or duck. Completely lose the oh I am looking for.
Is there any american english word that expresses the oh ?
and just saying Oh doesn't do it, because that is ambiguous. one could
say "Oh but not as in Go". But surely there is an american word that
makes the sound of that vowel ?
anybody?
and is there a difference between the ashkenazi kamatz and sephardi
cholem?
I don't buy this about the kamatz being like in Father. I know we
pronounce Father differently - in britain and america.
In ashkenazi We say Sholom(like Shoh Lum).. That Shoh is not like
Father.
Tim Meushaw
> On 20 May, 00:26, "Leon" <wordswordsNOS...@att.net> wrote:
>> <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> news:63de469b-bc50-4922...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > this is how to pronounce hebrew, from a student of rabbi daweed bar
>> > hayyim. (that's daweed, not the arabic, dawud)
>>
>> >http://www.archive.org/details/TrueHebrewPronounciation
>>
>> > He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
>>
>> > Not sure about what the vowels are based on.
>>
>> That's some DYNAMIC delivery!
>>
>> Leon
>
> I'm not in marketing.
>
> By the way.. When using text to communicate with him on this subject,
> there is a slight problem.. You americans are a bit difficult.
>
> I was trying to ask him whether there is any difference between the
> ashkenazi kamatz, and the sephardi cholem.
>
> Me, living in britain, hearing some ashkenazi accents, I can't see a
> difference.
I'm going to butcher the following story.
My father-in-law was with us over Pesach. He teaches, amongst other
topics, Biblical Hebrew at the university he works for. He's
expressed his dissatisfaction in the past with the majority of Hebrew
instructional materials, to the point where he hopes to write his own
text someday.
One example he gave, though, was a common "translation" chart for the
vowels, that one author used a number of years ago, and many modern
texts seem to have copied verbatim. I don't remember the exact example
he gave, so I'll steal yours. Something that's bothered him for a while
was an example that resembled "cholam is pronounced oh as in bother."
But, he contended, that doesn't make any sense, since "bother" doesn't
have an "oh" sound.
He only recently learned that the author of the original text and thus
the original chart that's copied verbatim in a number of other American
texts on learning Hebrew, was IRISH, and based all of his examples off
of that....
> But I cannot even find words that in american, make the ashkenazi
> kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
> In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
> Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
> But you americans pronounce that like a sheep.
> Even the dock in hickery dickery dock.. I can see you americans would
> pronounce it dar k or duck. Completely lose the oh I am looking for.
>
> Is there any american english word that expresses the oh ?
>
> and just saying Oh doesn't do it, because that is ambiguous. one could
> say "Oh but not as in Go". But surely there is an american word that
> makes the sound of that vowel ?
Not that I can think of. Even the letter "o" when reading the
alphabet isn't pronounced the same as the accents you're familiar with.
It's an American accent thing that doesn't fully form the sound, at
least with the American accent I'm familiar with. I suppose I could
say it's like the "hon" in a Baltimore (Bawlmer) accent, but there's no
doubt very few people here who would know what the heck I'm talking about.
Actually, if you were Canadian, "oh as in about" could be the sound
you're looking for, but again, that's not an American example.
Tim
P.S. I've heard "which" pronounced with the "h" vocalized when
listening to BBC Radio Scotland, but not in the US.
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
I'm...@home.yet
>> kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
>> In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
>> Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
>> But you americans pronounce that like a sheep.
>> Even the dock in hickery dickery dock.. I can see you americans would
>> pronounce it dar k or duck. Completely lose the oh I am looking for.
>>
>> Is there any american english word that expresses the oh ?
I think many Americans would pronounce the O in "dog" like that, as
long (hey--how about "long"?) as they're not southern Americans. Or
New Yorkers. Or Baltimore/Philadelphians. Or.. oh, forget it.
Micha Berger
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:39:57 +0000 (UTC), Tim Meushaw
>>> But I cannot even find words that in american, make the ashkenazi
>>> kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
>>> In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
>>> Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
> I think many Americans would pronounce the O in "dog" like that, as
> long (hey--how about "long"?) as they're not southern Americans. Or
> New Yorkers. Or Baltimore/Philadelphians. Or.. oh, forget it.
That's more of an old-style qawmatz than a cholam.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Tim Meushaw
The pronunciation that comes to mind there sounds more like "lawng" or
"dawg." After thinking some more, maybe "moat" or "boat" comes
closer.
Tim
yaco...@aol.com
> That's more of an old-style qawmatz than a cholam.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
Any chance of precision in the nomenclature?
Qamatz/Qamas = v., past tense, 3rd person sing.,"he grabbed a fistful"
Qametz/Qames = n., the vowel
Jacko
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Nope.. I can still see americans saying Darg . Like a sephardi
Kamatz. like Thus. (british and americans say Thus the same way I
think).
I think we pronounce the Ah of Cat the same too. Though americans are
more nasal..
So now I am confused.. about how hebrew is pronounced...
Forget Cholem for now.
In Modern Israeli Hebrew
are Patach and Kamatz pronounced the same ?
Or is Patach like cat, and Kamatz like Thus ?
How about sephardi hebrew
comparing
Patach , with Kamatz Gadol
Is that the same as modern israeli hebrew..
"Cat" for patach, "Thus" for kamatz gadol ?
And in ashkenazi, is the Patach like Cat or like Thus ?
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
No. Boat is an O like Go. That's an ashkenazi cholam.
I think you americans don't have a sephardi cholam / ashkenazi kamatz
in your sounds!!
And I do wonder also if there is a difference between the sephardi
cholam and ashkenazi kamatz.
JoelH
His general approach is that Hebrew sounded like Arabic, which is a
common and convenient mistake.
We know a lot about Arabic because Arab grammarians documented their
sounds using one of only three reliable methods: they described how
the mouth and tongue created the sounds. (The other methods are audio
recordings and advanced notation like the IPA --- neither was
available in the first millennium.)
But assuming that Hebrew was pronounced like Arabic is like looking
for a coin where there's light rather than where it was lost.
For more information, see the Hebrew section on my online
bibliography:
http://www.lashon.net/JMH/ReadingList.html
-Joel
Joel M. Hoffman, PhD
http://www.lashon.net
Chair, CAJE 33
http://caje33.wordpress.com and http://www.CAJE.org
Herman Rubin
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21 May, 01:27, I'm...@home.yet wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:39:57 +0000 (UTC), Tim Meushaw
I do not seem to have your type of pronunciation.
>> >> But I cannot even find words that in american, make the ashkenazi
>> >> kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
>> >> In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
I would say yes for Boris, but the "o" in Bother
sounds to me like the pathakh.
>> >> Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
>> >> But you americans pronounce that like a sheep.
I am not sure where you heard Americans speak, but
you are reasonable on this one.
>> >> Even the dock in hickery dickery dock.. I can see you americans would
>> >> pronounce it dar k or duck. Completely lose the oh I am looking for.
No, the accepted Amereican pronunciation is like the
pathakh. That the "short o" pronunciation in American
English and in the English of at least many British
is like the "ah" the doctor tells you to say when he
asks you to stick out your tongue is as it is is due
to the medieval "great vowel shift".
>> >> Is there any american english word that expresses the oh ?
>> I think many Americans would pronounce the O in "dog" like that, as
>> long (hey--how about "long"?) as they're not southern Americans. Or
>> New Yorkers. Or Baltimore/Philadelphians. Or.. oh, forget it.
I agree with this.
>Nope.. I can still see americans saying Darg . Like a sephardi
>Kamatz. like Thus. (british and americans say Thus the same way I
>think).
The "u" in "thus" does not occur in any of the other
languages with which I am familiar. The closest I can
get is a stressed sheva.
>I think we pronounce the Ah of Cat the same too. Though americans are
>more nasal..
The dictionary pronunciation does not correspond to any
sound I have heard in other languages. Possibly the
New England pronunciation would be like that.
>So now I am confused.. about how hebrew is pronounced...
>Forget Cholem for now.
>In Modern Israeli Hebrew
> are Patach and Kamatz pronounced the same ?
Most of the time. Qamatz katan is like the o in dog,
as pronounced by most Americans.
>Or is Patach like cat, and Kamatz like Thus ?
>How about sephardi hebrew
>comparing
>Patach , with Kamatz Gadol
>Is that the same as modern israeli hebrew..
>"Cat" for patach, "Thus" for kamatz gadol ?
>And in ashkenazi, is the Patach like Cat or like Thus ?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
yaco...@aol.com
> On May 19, 8:15 am, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
> > He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
>
> > Not sure about what the vowels are based on.
>
> His general approach is that Hebrew sounded like Arabic, which is a
> common and convenient mistake.
No, yours is the silly mistake. jews di dnot even speak Arabic like
Arabs, let alone Hebrew.
Se'adia was a GAON. He had an unbroken tradition form the days Judah
was first exiled to Babylon. He had an academy behind him that
existed for 1000 years.
> But assuming that Hebrew was pronounced like Arabic is like looking
> for a coin where there's light rather than where it was lost.
It aint an assumption. It was a tradition.
> For more information, see the Hebrew section on my online
> bibliography:
>
> http://www.lashon.net/JMH/ReadingList.html
Why?
Jacko
> -Joel
>
> Joel M. Hoffman, PhDhttp://www.lashon.net
>
> Chair, CAJE 33http://caje33.wordpress.comandhttp://www.CAJE.org
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> On May 23, 7:30 am, JoelH <JoelAtExc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > His general approach is that Hebrew sounded like Arabic, which is a
> > common and convenient mistake.
>
> No, yours is the silly mistake. jews di dnot even speak Arabic like
> Arabs, let alone Hebrew.
>
> Se'adia was a GAON. He had an unbroken tradition form the days Judah
> was first exiled to Babylon. He had an academy behind him that
> existed for 1000 years.
>
> > But assuming that Hebrew was pronounced like Arabic is like looking
> > for a coin where there's light rather than where it was lost.
>
> It aint an assumption. It was a tradition.
I am confused here. First, you say that Jews did not speak Hebrew like
Arabs. But later, you say that it was a tradition that Hebrew was
pronounced like Arabic. Which is it? Was Hebrew pronounced like
Arabic, or was it not?
Giorgies
puzzled, but confident that an answer will be forthcoming that clears
up the puzzle
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> On May 23, 7:30 am, JoelH <JoelAtExc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 8:15 am, "jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk"
> > > He bases his consonants on the saadya gaon.
>
> > > Not sure about what the vowels are based on.
>
> > His general approach is that Hebrew sounded like Arabic, which is a
> > common and convenient mistake.
>
> No, yours is the silly mistake. jews di dnot even speak Arabic like
> Arabs, let alone Hebrew.
>
This student of Rabbi Bar Hayyim says that the Saadya Gaon said that
his description uses the method of-
these consonants are spoken exactly as in Arabic, and these ones are
different.
> Se'adia was a GAON. He had an unbroken tradition form the days Judah
> was first exiled to Babylon. He had an academy behind him that
> existed for 1000 years.
>
and he didn't define the vowels
<snip>
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> In article <b4871bf7-22fd-46fa-b0fb-1a46dab9b...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 21 May, 01:27, I'm...@home.yet wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 12:39:57 +0000 (UTC), Tim Meushaw
>
> I do not seem to have your type of pronunciation.
>
> >> >> But I cannot even find words that in american, make the ashkenazi
> >> >> kamatz / sephardi cholem sound.
> >> >> In an english accent. Boris. Bother.
>
> I would say yes for Boris, but the "o" in Bother
> sounds to me like the pathakh.
>
in britain, we don't say it like baaaah ther.
> >> >> Seems to be the Oh I am looking for.
> >> >> But you americans pronounce that like a sheep.
>
> I am not sure where you heard Americans speak, but
> you are reasonable on this one.
>
I spoke to an american recently, he could not find the Oh..
And I spoke to a british rabbi who had been to america, and he said
americans can't speak hebrew properly. They can't do the cholam..
The rabbi concurred with me that a sephardi cholam= ashkenazi kamatz,
in pronunciation... (and of course the ivrit cholam is te sephardi
cholam) So they can't speak any traditional pronunciation, or the
ivrit one.
> >> >> Even the dock in hickery dickery dock.. I can see you americans would
> >> >> pronounce it dar k or duck. Completely lose the oh I am looking for.
>
> No, the accepted Amereican pronunciation is like the
> pathakh. That the "short o" pronunciation in American
> English and in the English of at least many British
> is like the "ah" the doctor tells you to say when he
> asks you to stick out your tongue is as it is is due
> to the medieval "great vowel shift".
>
I have no idea what you mean there.. that dock is like a
patach?!!!!!!!
Even if you say it like Duck, that is a sephardi kamatz. (though
americans would probably elongate the first syllable and fit a bit of
an R in there. Americans pronounce the sephardi kamatz more like Arr
than Ah.)
sephardim and I think Ivrit, have 2 forms of Ah
Kamatz , and Patach.
(sephardim have 2 kamatz sounds, I refer to the sephardi kamatz gadol)
Ashkenazim, just have Patach.
I think...
the sephardi and ivrit patach, are Ah like Cat,Animal,Sack. That's a
very mouth wide open Ah.
their kamatz is ah like in Bus,Thus,Under,Blunder
I think
The ashkenazi patach, is Ah like Bus and Thus, Under, blunder, lunch,
london, yuck, luck, .
> >> >> Is there any american english word that expresses the oh ?
> >> I think many Americans would pronounce the O in "dog" like that, as
> >> long (hey--how about "long"?) as they're not southern Americans. Or
> >> New Yorkers. Or Baltimore/Philadelphians. Or.. oh, forget it.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> >Nope.. I can still see americans saying Darg . Like a sephardi
> >Kamatz. like Thus. (british and americans say Thus the same way I
> >think).
>
> The "u" in "thus" does not occur in any of the other
> languages with which I am familiar. The closest I can
> get is a stressed sheva.
>
Not sure what you mean about the u in "thus" not occurring in any
other language. It is the sephardi kamatz and ashkenazi patach. (I
gave given many words similar to / rhyming with, with same syllable
as, thus. Us is another one)
vocal/stressed shva is totally different and occurs in many many
words. e.g.
-Sur-real, -Cir-cumference, Sir, -B-urn, -L-earn , -G-ertrude,
It The "Uh/Uch" sound, putting the U of it under whatever consonant.
Don't you have Homer Simpson saying Duhhhh You get a vocal shva if
you don't elongate it as much, and remove any potential R so you don't
say Dur or Duhhr.
> >I think we pronounce the Ah of Cat the same too. Though americans are
> >more nasal..
>
> The dictionary pronunciation does not correspond to any
> sound I have heard in other languages. Possibly the
> New England pronunciation would be like that.
>
I don't mean like Thus..
I mean.. I think we both pronounce cat the same.
sephardi patach (=ivrit patach).
mouth very wide, wider than Thus/bus.
I mean like
Cat/Animal/Fat/Hat/Chatter
> >So now I am confused.. about how hebrew is pronounced...
> >Forget Cholem for now.
> >In Modern Israeli Hebrew
> > are Patach and Kamatz pronounced the same ?
>
> Most of the time. Qamatz katan is like the o in dog,
> as pronounced by most Americans.
>
I don't think americans say dog any different than they say orange or
con.
If it's not the O in Go, they pronounce it Not even like Ah, but like
Arr.
Which does not compare to the sephardi cholam, or any hebrew vowel.
in answer to my questions..
I think,
> >Forget Cholem for now.
> >In Modern Israeli Hebrew
> > are Patach and Kamatz pronounced the same ?
no. patach=cat, kamatz=thus/bus
> >Or is Patach like cat, and Kamatz like Thus ?
yes
> >How about sephardi hebrew
> >comparing
> >Patach , with Kamatz Gadol
> >Is that the same as modern israeli hebrew..
> >"Cat" for patach, "Thus" for kamatz gadol ?
yes
> >And in ashkenazi, is the Patach like Cat or like Thus ?
>
Thus
I don't think the Ah of Cat exists in ashkenazi pronunciation.
makes sense.. since kamatz is that sound (british accent - boris), so
only one vowel is available for Ah. Thus is easier - more natural,
and I think that's what it is!
yaco...@aol.com
wrote:
> I am confused here. First, you say that Jews did not speak Hebrew like
> Arabs.
No, I did not. Without some effort at precision, this discussion is
really not fruitful. I said they did not even speak Arabic like the
Arabs, therefore to assume without any evidence at all, or knowledge
of the Geonic comunities, that they spoke Hebrew "like Arabic" is
absurd.
> But later, you say that it was a tradition that Hebrew was
> pronounced like Arabic. Which is it? Was Hebrew pronounced like
> Arabic, or was it not?
The languages share many consonants. Not gimmal, of course. Some
Jews pronounced a teth like the voiced one of the (ta, tha) pair;
others like the unvoiced.
There is no intelligent way to answer a buzz word type query such as
"Was Hebrew pronounced as Arabic or not?" Your question assumes
certain either/ors that I do not perceive as being real.
> Giorgies
Jacko
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
To add-
worth pointing out though, that the rema was aware of it and did not
say one way or the other , that we should stick to the wrong way -
with no distinction, or change to / learn the correct way.
I had a discussion of these issues with a rabbi I know..Brilliant
guy..
I put it to him, what the neturei karta type guy. said. Which is what
the Kollel guy said. That you cannot change your pronunciation, 'cos
it is your custom.
He said the neturei karta guy was right, about custom being as strong
as law..
(this suggests he thought maybe pronunciation comes under the category
of custom).
I then put to him the example that JNC posted to the kollel guy. THe
example of a far off community pronouncing everything mixed up. And I
put to him the answer that they should stay the same. (since he says
custom is as strong as law) And I asked him if he agrees..
He said he doesn't think so.. There is such a thing as Minhag Taas(he
pronounced it Tah As). i.e. an incorrect minhag.
I then brought up about .. chassidim and nusach sephard.. He said
something very interesting regarding them. He said I don't think
we're allowed to do that.
And he answered with the question
Can a Misnaged become a Chassid? Or, can a Misnaged become a Chassid?
GREAT question.. Be interesting to ask a chassid.. Because a chassid
would no doubt believe that a misnaged can become a chassid, but it
would mean throwing out the old customs by doing nusach sephard. And
of course, nusach sephard is based on the Arizal. Their great great
great grandfathers did not do it.
And regarding the point in the shulchan aruch about the Aleph and Ayin
He pointed out, as a matter of interest. That actually, he heard that
Dayan (I can't remember the name..) but a big guy, he mentioned an
association with Rabbi Kanievsky..
He distinguished the aleph and ayin.. though in an interesting way..
I think he said he pronounced Shema Shang. so he did Ayin like ANG!
That was his custom.
So he did distinguish.. (but there was a distinciton there. From a big
ashkenazi.rabbi. According to his own tradition).
AND..
I mentioned to him about the 3 oaths.
The chanukah argument.. That if the 3 oaths apply. Then how does one
explain chanukah?
He said, they only applied after the temple was destroyed and we were
exiled.
(I guess he is referring to the 2nd temple).
The (2nd) temple was destroyed in 70CE
The Chanukah story took place 168-165BCE. (the 2nd temple was still
standing at that time).
Now I ramble a bit....
I can't remember his argument of why they could not have applied in
solomon's time. And apply after the 2nd temple was destroyed.. I
heard from a branch of NK, leader dovid weiss, also, that they not
just apply but "were given", or "were made" after the 2nd temple was
destroyed.
Of course, it's worth poitning out, as JNC has pointed out elsewhere..
That they are not literal oaths.. Nobody can say At what time in
history, when/where, the jews were gathered together by G-d, and the
gentiles gathered together, for G-d to make these oaths literally.
Of course, as Gil Student (as a comment he made on his site says, he
is a non zionist, he said, The question still remains what do they
teach. And it can only teach that..)
one of the big zionist arguments bases itself on the idea that the 3
oaths are serious, literal.. Nobody seems to claim they teach
anything else.
So the argument is that since we got permission, they no longer apply.
The league of nations, or the UN, is te mechanism the nations used to
decide.. So that is how the nations give permission.. The argument
against would be that the surrounding nations clearly didn't give
permission.. And if you were to give the oaths a common theme. You
need permission.. IF you don't have permission, it causes a fight. And
one of the oaths is not to rise up against the nations.
Another argument.. From rabbi Kahane.. Was Take a Torah position..
But if you say that they apply today.. Then don't play games . There
can be no state.. And you cannot -ever- rise up against the nations.
This rabbi I spoke to though, said he thinks you can in self-defence!
I have seen on the NK site.. Praise of jews who didn't fight, and died
al kiddush hashem.
I asked this rabbi about Daas Torah.. He thought it was not a Group
thing. It was an individual thing. And he said he believed in the idea
that if you asked a rav a question, you are bound by the answer. He
said if you want to ask another rabbi - to get a second opinion, you
have to ask the first one's permission.
I mentioned to him that Anti-zionists would say they are following
Daas Torah in terms of the majourity.. He said, that after the
holocaust, the majourity of jews.. or better, what counts.. the
majourity of religious/orthodox jews, and their rabbis. Were not Anti-
Zionist. The Anti-Zionists were largely wiped out in the holocaust.
(I guess they are growing now.. I did hear one person say israel is
30% charedi and 30% national religious)
Tim Meushaw
<snip because only responding to two portions>
> And he answered with the question
> Can a Misnaged become a Chassid? Or, can a Misnaged become a Chassid?
>
> GREAT question.. Be interesting to ask a chassid.. Because a chassid
> would no doubt believe that a misnaged can become a chassid, but it
> would mean throwing out the old customs by doing nusach sephard. And
> of course, nusach sephard is based on the Arizal. Their great great
> great grandfathers did not do it.
Agree with their belief that a misnaged can become a chassid;
Lubavitch in particular seems to be made up of a number of people who
made such a transition. I know one sephardic gentleman who made the
switch, too.
> And regarding the point in the shulchan aruch about the Aleph and Ayin
>
> He pointed out, as a matter of interest. That actually, he heard that
> Dayan (I can't remember the name..) but a big guy, he mentioned an
> association with Rabbi Kanievsky..
> He distinguished the aleph and ayin.. though in an interesting way..
> I think he said he pronounced Shema Shang. so he did Ayin like ANG!
> That was his custom.
I think it was Micha who in the past has commented here about how the
Yiddish name Yankel came from Yaakov, and thus the ayin had that kind of
sound at some point. Also Reminds me of the "Ng" of the Vietnamese name
"Nguyen" in that case. I've also seen here (in SCJM) about the territory
`Azza becoming known as Gaza for a similiar reason.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> On 2008-05-29, jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip because only responding to two portions>
> > And he answered with the question
> > Can a Misnaged become a Chassid? Or, can a Misnaged become a Chassid?
>
> > GREAT question.. Be interesting to ask a chassid.. Because a chassid
> > would no doubt believe that a misnaged can become a chassid, but it
> > would mean throwing out the old customs by doing nusach sephard. And
> > of course, nusach sephard is based on the Arizal. Their great great
> > great grandfathers did not do it.
>
> Agree with their belief that a misnaged can become a chassid;
> Lubavitch in particular seems to be made up of a number of people who
> made such a transition. I know one sephardic gentleman who made the
> switch, too.
You may never get it now..
You snipped some background
The background before he asked me "can a misnaged become a chassid?"
was,
Me(not a chassid) and the rabbi(not a chassid) discussed previously
the belief, that custom is as strong as law. He stood by that
belief.. Later, I asked him about chassidim doing nusach sephard..
just an open question -'cos it was like a chat- and he knew alot. So I
asked him as to why they do nusach sephard..
He said he doesn't know (By that he meant he doesn't know how they can
justify it). And he then asked the question.. Can a chassid become a
misnaged?
You have not appreciated the brilliance of the question. It's in the
logic. It's not just a brilliant question, it's a funny one too. (and
a serious one too - obviously). And I even explained the logic in
that paragraph.
I did explain the logic earlier. After I wrote the words "GREAT
QUESTION" I explained TO YOU or some others here, why it was a great
question
(I didn't explain it to him. He knew, that's why he asked it )
BTW.. he actually was consistent, and said he thinks a Misnaged cannot
become a chassid. (I didn't ask him if a chassid can become a
misnaged, but it's not such a brilliant question as the other way
asked to a chassid . Because chassidim or their grandfathers have
already dropped their old customs and changed)
>
> > And regarding the point in the shulchan aruch about the Aleph and Ayin
>
> > He pointed out, as a matter of interest. That actually, he heard that
> > Dayan (I can't remember the name..) but a big guy, he mentioned an
> > association with Rabbi Kanievsky..
> > He distinguished the aleph and ayin.. though in an interesting way..
> > I think he said he pronounced Shema Shang. so he did Ayin like ANG!
> > That was his custom.
>
> I think it was Micha who in the past has commented here about how the
> Yiddish name Yankel came from Yaakov, and thus the ayin had that kind of
> sound at some point. Also Reminds me of the "Ng" of the Vietnamese name
> "Nguyen" in that case.
There are still some today that pronounce it like that. They have that
custom/tradition.. Clearly not based on the saadya gaon.. And a
linguist may argue that they are mistaken e.g. violating some pattern
- I am not sure what though... Maybe the criticism is that Ang isn't a
vowel or a consonant, it's a mixture, a "word"! (which would violate
the pattern of every other letter in hebrew, or any other semitic
language, and perhaps any other language!)
> I've also seen here (in SCJM) about the territory
> `Azza becoming known as Gaza for a similiar reason.
>
Well, that is a more well known googlable thing.
Arabs pronounce Azza with a Ghayn not the hebrew Ayin.
(they spell it with a G - Gaza, it is actually pronounced rolling r
like reish , oddly enough. G and R are considered hard and soft forms
of each other by linguists(I think), and in some pronunciations of
hebrew. )
Greeks got it off the Arabs, - (raza I suppose) and since the greeks
spelt it with a G, I guess they pronounced it as Gaza. But english
certainly do. Azza. Amorah.
But for some reason english don't call moshe's father Amram - Gamram.
Apparently this comes (or is just reflected by?) the greek translation
of the bible. Amram was not translated as Gamram. Dunno if there is a
reason for that.
Micha Berger
There is an obligation to disambiguate alef and ayin as well as ches
and khaf. That is one of the halakhos of pronunciation.
That's a far smaller claim than saying that all of pronunciation is
defined by halakhah. How one fulfills the constraints of halakhah is up
to custom, and therefore custom is inviolate, not the theory.
So, on this I'm in partial agreement with the kollelnik and the NK guy.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 39th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Yesod: What is imposing about a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliable person?
Micha Berger
> I had a discussion of these issues with a rabbi I know..Brilliant
> guy..
> I mentioned to him about the 3 oaths.
> The chanukah argument.. That if the 3 oaths apply. Then how does one
> explain chanukah?
> He said, they only applied after the temple was destroyed and we were
> exiled.
> (I guess he is referring to the 2nd temple).
> The (2nd) temple was destroyed in 70CE
> The Chanukah story took place 168-165BCE. (the 2nd temple was still
> standing at that time).
> Now I ramble a bit....
> I can't remember his argument of why they could not have applied in
> solomon's time...
I don't follow his line of reasoning.
The oaths were made in Yirmiyahu's day, when we were exiled from the First
Commonwealth (see Kesuvos 111a). So I would think they did apply when the
2nd Temple was founded, and when the Hasmonians won a measure of autonomy.
Of course, it does trivialize dismissing the question about the conquest
by Joshua through the founding of Solomon's Temple. The oaths weren't
made yet.
Zerubavel et al didn't think they were building a Second Temple. They
thought they were building the *the* Temple, the messianic one. The date
they chose to consecrate the Temple during the Hasmonian War, the date
of Chanukah, was to match Zechariah's prophecy. They thought this was it.
Which certainly does make them very visible precedent to messianic
religious Zionists.
...
> So the argument is that since we got permission, they no longer apply.
> The league of nations, or the UN, is te mechanism the nations used to
> decide.. So that is how the nations give permission.. The argument
> against would be that the surrounding nations clearly didn't give
> permission..
Another is that they violated their oath -- not to try to exterminate
us -- first. Perhaps the fact that the Holocaust preceded statehood is
an even clearly predicted by that story in the talmud. But in any case,
it's grounds for saying our side of the deal had ended.
Third, and this is what I was referring to before, it can't include
the messianic redemption. If someone truly believes that the State of
Israel is the "beginning of the blooming of our redemption" then they
would believe it's after the time that the oaths applied to.
> I have seen on the NK site.. Praise of jews who didn't fight, and died
> al kiddush hashem.
One should note that this group is not Neturei Karta, they are a group
of nutcases who share the name. The main body of Neturei Karta have
nothing to do with them; and that's decades before before the nuts
attended Ahminijabad's anti-holocaust spectacle.
The web site doesn't speak for anyone sane, it doesn't pay to explore
it.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger
> I had a discussion of these issues with a rabbi I know..Brilliant
> guy..
> I asked this rabbi about Daas Torah.. He thought it was not a Group
> thing. It was an individual thing. And he said he believed in the idea
> that if you asked a rav a question, you are bound by the answer. He
> said if you want to ask another rabbi - to get a second opinion, you
> have to ask the first one's permission.
I would say that:
(1) It's individual, because halakhah allows for a plurality of voices.
"Its ways are ways of pleasantness" is written in the plural.
(2) It's also relative, not all or nothing. There is no qualitative
difference between "the gedolim" who have daas Torah, and the rest of us
who do not. Rather, the more someone studied and lived Torah, the more it
shapes how they think, and therefore the more it shapes how they analyze
your question. More vs less, not a classed society of have and have-not.
Your Rabbi sounds like he may be conflating two things (or you didn't
pick up on a distinction): halachic authority and using their wisdom
outside of the realm of halakhah. There is a gray area in between --
things that are against Torah values but not quite prohibited, or even
less, they have impact on one's religious life in some minor way.
For example, a career choice will impact how much time one has for other
things. So in some way, there is religious content to the decision. But
that's not the same as asking if I ought to drink milk that was not
watched by Jews, or if I'm obligated to pay income tax on something that
most people in my country do not.
I think the need to ask the first rabbi's permission is only in the
halachic realm, where their decision has legal interpretive power,
not merely well-informed advice.
> I mentioned to him that Anti-zionists would say they are following
> Daas Torah in terms of the majourity.. He said, that after the
> holocaust, the majourity of jews.. or better, what counts.. the
> majourity of religious/orthodox jews, and their rabbis. Were not Anti-
> Zionist. The Anti-Zionists were largely wiped out in the holocaust.
> (I guess they are growing now.. I did hear one person say israel is
> 30% charedi and 30% national religious)
It is arguable that the faxcts on the ground changed. The Zionism that
R' Chaim Brisker was against is a different movement than the Zionism
of today. Then, Zionism was an Ism out to provide a Jewish identity to
*replace* that provided by the Jewish religion. Today, it's a conservative
force whose primary foe is the assimilationist post-Zionism. I would
argue that his position and those of his contemporaries is simply not
in reference to today's decision.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Leon
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:g1mttf$umm$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
> jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk <jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I had a discussion of these issues with a rabbi I know..Brilliant
>> guy..
> ...
>> I asked this rabbi about Daas Torah.. He thought it was not a Group
>> thing. It was an individual thing. And he said he believed in the idea
>> that if you asked a rav a question, you are bound by the answer. He
>> said if you want to ask another rabbi - to get a second opinion, you
>> have to ask the first one's permission.
Those of us who read the Sunday Magazine of The New York Times are familiar
with a column called "The Ethicist". The questions, for the most part, seem
to address obvious issues. My father, obm, used to say, "If you have to ask
if it's OK for you to do something you think is wrong, it is wrong. We call
it conscience."
Leon
h3rman
<jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've also seen here (in SCJM) about the territory
> > `Azza becoming known as Gaza for a similiar reason.
>
> Well, that is a more well known googlable thing.
> Arabs pronounce Azza with a Ghayn not the hebrew Ayin.
> (they spell it with a G - Gaza, it is actually pronounced rolling r
> like reish , oddly enough.
It's not so odd, both `ayin and ghayin (` and ġ) are gutturals, the
one with the throat letting out all the air, the other 'compressing'
some of the air.
> G and R are considered hard and soft forms
> of each other by linguists(I think), and in some pronunciations of
> hebrew. )
>
That would not be the way linguists prefer to describe it.
> Greeks got it off the Arabs, - (raza I suppose) and since the greeks
> spelt it with a G, I guess they pronounced it as Gaza. But english
> certainly do. Azza. Amorah.
Greeks did not get it off the Arabs.
It works like this: the Hebrew ע (`ayin) is a consonantal character.
It does not have any intrinsically phonetic meaning, just like "th" in
English does not.
For instance, [th] in "there" represents a sound different from [th]
in "think".
The same is true with the Hebrew ע (`ayin), it represents at least two
sounds in the written Tora, one similar to the sound represented by
the Arabic `ayin. For example, He. בעל B`L in Greek is βάαλ (baal),
but עזה (`ZH) in Greek is Γάζα (Gaza).
The Greeks didn't hear this from the Arabs: Gaza, and Greek trade with
the Levant, are much too old for that. This is a North-West Semitic
distinction that Arabic merely shares. The Septuagint (LXX) which
contains Γάζα was written by Jews in Alexandria who were aware of the
way the word עזה (`ZH) was pronounced (simply because it was a well-
known place).
'Somewhere' (don't ask me exactly when) Hebrew lost both the `
("`ayin") and the ġ ("ghayin") phoneme, just as it lost the
distinction between the two distinct phonemes between ש Śin and ס
Samekh. The only difference is that you can see it in the latter case,
but you can't see it in the former case, because one character was
used for two phonemes there.
> But for some reason english don't call moshe's father Amram - Gamram.
Because the original phoneme was `, not ġ.
> Apparently this comes (or is just reflected by?) the greek translation
> of the bible. Amram was not translated as Gamram. Dunno if there is a
> reason for that.
The simple reason is that the translators of the LXX knew how it was
pronounced. Just like English speakers know the different sounds of
the G in the words "ginger" and "gift".
regards
Herman
Dvora L
Those of us who read the Sunday Magazine of The New York Times are
familiar with a column called "The Ethicist". The questions, for the
most part, seem to address obvious issues. My father, obm, used to say,
"If you have to ask if it's OK for you to do something you think is
wrong, it is wrong. We call it conscience."
Leon
from dvora
leon - your father (obm) taught you well -
you were blessed to have had him - - i am sorry you no longer do -
******
Be safe and well :-) .... DVORA
Micha Berger
> The same is true with the Hebrew ? (`ayin), it represents at least two
> sounds in the written Tora, one similar to the sound represented by
> but ??? (`ZH) in Greek is ???? (Gaza).
Except that the Seifer haYetzirah, which scholarship dates to 2nd or
3rd century CE <http://www.maqom.com/journal/paper14.pdf> (and tradition
attributes to Abraham's authorship and Rabbi Aqiva's redaction), lists
the letters that have two sounds, and ayin isn't on the list.
(Reish had two sounds at the time, though. There is no religious problem
to saying a letter once had two sounds but now one is lost.)
It's hard to use reasoning and analogy from other languages to disprove
an explicit statement of a speaker of the language.
More likely ayin was simply a sound somewhere between a gamma and silence,
and the LXX only chose to write it as a gamma when it stuck out to his
ear -- not by some deep rule or purpose. "Gomoras", "Gazan" and "Pogor"
from the LXX don't represent the sound of the the Hebrew `Amorah, `Azzah,
or Pe`or that closely in the rest of the word anyway.
Hebrew would not be the only semitic language to only have one such
letter: Canaanite languages and Phoenician only had one letter too.
(And so, obviously, Aramaic and Syriac.) Given such a late date to the
loss of the `ayin, even though popular among people studying biblical
texts, places it after the use of Aramaic in Judea. A parallel loss in
both languages at the same time?
> 'Somewhere' (don't ask me exactly when) Hebrew lost both the `
> ("`ayin") and the ? ("ghayin") phoneme, just as it lost the
> distinction between the two distinct phonemes between ? ?in and ?
> Samekh. The only difference is that you can see it in the latter case,
> but you can't see it in the former case, because one character was
> used for two phonemes there.
No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
Psalms.
>> Apparently this comes (or is just reflected by?) the greek translation
>> of the bible. Amram was not translated as Gamram. Dunno if there is a
>> reason for that.
>
> The simple reason is that the translators of the LXX knew how it was
> pronounced. Just like English speakers know the different sounds of
> the G in the words "ginger" and "gift".
>
> regards
> Herman
--
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 40th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I had a discussion of these issues with a rabbi I know..Brilliant
> > guy..
> ...
> > I mentioned to him about the 3 oaths.
> > The chanukah argument.. That if the 3 oaths apply. Then how does one
> > explain chanukah?
> > He said, they only applied after the temple was destroyed and we were
> > exiled.
> > (I guess he is referring to the 2nd temple).
> > The (2nd) temple was destroyed in 70CE
> > The Chanukah story took place 168-165BCE. (the 2nd temple was still
> > standing at that time).
> > Now I ramble a bit....
> > I can't remember his argument of why they could not have applied in
> > solomon's time...
>
> I don't follow his line of reasoning.
>
> The oaths were made in Yirmiyahu's day, when we were exiled from the First
> Commonwealth (see Kesuvos 111a). So I would think they did apply when the
> 2nd Temple was founded, and when the Hasmonians won a measure of autonomy.
>
yirmiyahu witnessed the destruction of the temple.. so you're saying
this was in yirmiyahu's time and after the destruction.. 'cos that is
where the verse is..
from that point, to even before chanukah, there must have been other
apparent violations of the 3 oaths.
Returning to israel (before facing the 2nd exile). So Going up en
masse.
We must have fought enemies at the time.. So rising up against the
nations
> Of course, it does trivialize dismissing the question about the conquest
> by Joshua through the founding of Solomon's Temple. The oaths weren't
> made yet.
out of interest, was solomon's temple built before or after he wrote
song of songs?
The talmud relates the 3 oaths to a passage in yirmiyahu and
passage(s) in solomon's song of songs. So if you say that the
association gives us the time they were made. Then who is to say the
oaths were in yirmiyahu's time and not solomon's?
>
> Zerubavel et al didn't think they were building a Second Temple. They
> thought they were building the *the* Temple, the messianic one. The date
> they chose to consecrate the Temple during the Hasmonian War, the date
> of Chanukah, was to match Zechariah's prophecy. They thought this was it.
>
according to wikipedia 535BCE-516BCE, it was built.
built up some more in 19BC.. destroyed in 70CE.
you say it was consecrated chanukah time , that was around 168BCE.
What did that consecration involve. Why did they wait so long ?
> Which certainly does make them very visible precedent to messianic
> religious Zionists.
>
interesting
> ...
>
> > So the argument is that since we got permission, they no longer apply.
> > The league of nations, or the UN, is te mechanism the nations used to
> > decide.. So that is how the nations give permission.. The argument
> > against would be that the surrounding nations clearly didn't give
> > permission..
>
> Another is that they violated their oath -- not to try to exterminate
> us -- first. Perhaps the fact that the Holocaust preceded statehood is
> an even clearly predicted by that story in the talmud. But in any case,
> it's grounds for saying our side of the deal had ended.
but no pre zionist source that says the 3 oaths were interdependent.
in contrast, presumably the permission idea is based on the talmud..
though I can't see it in the soncino translation of ketuvot 111A (I
don't even see the source about permission)
>
> Third, and this is what I was referring to before, it can't include
> the messianic redemption. If someone truly believes that the State of
> Israel is the "beginning of the blooming of our redemption" then they
> would believe it's after the time that the oaths applied to.
>
I have heard that according to the talmud, we are still in exile as
soon as the 2nd temple was destroyed (e.g. apparently the jewish
people were still living in israel with no temple and were considered
to be in galus/exile).
And I think rabbi kahane said we are still in galus/exile.. He also
said it is the beginning of the redemption. One could put the
beginning of the redemption when many religious jews started
immigrating (according to joan peters, immigration was from around
1880s ). At some point, students of the vilna gaon.. A slow
process. Nobody would say the beginning of that is the end of the
exile.
Maybe the completion of redemption is the end of the exile. The
rebuilding of the temple perhaps - which hasn't happened yet.
> > I have seen on the NK site.. Praise of jews who didn't fight, and died
> > al kiddush hashem.
>
> One should note that this group is not Neturei Karta, they are a group
> of nutcases who share the name. The main body of Neturei Karta have
> nothing to do with them; and that's decades before before the nuts
> attended Ahminijabad's anti-holocaust spectacle.
>
Though they are misnagdim. Their core philosophy is same as satmar
anti-zionists, and alot of the things on their website , the
mainstream anti-zionists would agree with. It's just the standing with
terrorists that is an issue. Their stunts. But theologically, they're
not "way out there".
> The web site doesn't speak for anyone sane, it doesn't pay to explore
> it.
Most of what they say is sane.
At least they are honest.
Most charedi jews keep themselves to themselves and people don't know
how anti-zionist they are.
modern orthodoxy today is zionist.. yet the founder was rabbi hirsch
(who according to rabbi schiller, was an anti-zionist). I was really
suprised to hear that!
There is even a modern orthodox zionist school in london that claims
to be based on his teachings! (though they don't read any of his
works! Oh, and they let in non orthodox students)
some satmar views - of course these you would say are not insane,
since satmar is quite a big chassidic group.. and their rabbi was a
"gadol".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vayoel_Moshe
"
Other arguments
Rabbi Teitelbaum refers to religious Zionism as a major desecration of
G-d's name.
Blames Zionism for the Holocaust...
argues that any participation in the Israeli elections is one of the
worst sins and halachically a Jew must rather be killed than vote.
blames all the bloodshed in the middle east on the Zionists.
.."
Micha Berger
> from that point, to even before chanukah, there must have been other
> apparent violations of the 3 oaths.
> Returning to israel (before facing the 2nd exile). So Going up en
> masse.
> We must have fought enemies at the time.. So rising up against the
> nations
Let's talk about the spirit of the teaching about the 3 oaths, since we
don't know if the oaths themselves were a historic phenomenon.
They didn't fight enemies until the Maccabees. They were a Persian and
then Saleucid colony; fighting was the empire's problem.
But yes, the whole 2nd Temple phenomenon shows that if you think your
return is part of the messianic process, you wouldn't pay attention to
the oaths.
So, messianic Religious Zionists have no problem. Today, they are
the majority of the RZ community. However, among the known thinkers,
that position is uniquely that of the Rabbis Kook (father and son). R'
Reines (who founded Mizrachi in the 19th cent), Rabbis JB and Aaron
Soloveitchik, etc... did not make messianic claims. R' JB Soloveitchik
explicitly bowed out of the question, saying it was one for prophets,
and otherwise could not be the basis for action.
There is a simple problem with the oaths: they defy a biblical
obligation. Oaths made that are against the Torah aren't even binding.
Therefore, the straight halachicist would ignore this bit of aggadita
(moral and/or philosophical teaching, in contrast to halakhah) when
it comes to decision-making and get on with fulfilling his duties and
recommended actions.
> The talmud relates the 3 oaths to a passage in yirmiyahu and
> passage(s) in solomon's song of songs. So if you say that the
> association gives us the time they were made. Then who is to say the
> oaths were in yirmiyahu's time and not solomon's?
The talmudic quote we're discussing places the oath at the time of
departure from Israel. Therefore it could only be Yirmiyahu's day.
...
> you say it was consecrated chanukah time , that was around 168BCE.
> What did that consecration involve. Why did they wait so long ?
It was reconsecrated Chanukah time.
And that's not "I say", that's translating the word "Chanukah".
>> Which certainly does make them very visible precedent to messianic
>> religious Zionists.
> interesting
Bu which I meant religious Zionism founded on messianism, not Zionism of
j4js.
...
> but no pre zionist source that says the 3 oaths were interdependent.
None says they aren't. It's simply not discussed enough until the
Zionist era to argue from silence
...
> some satmar views - of course these you would say are not insane,
> since satmar is quite a big chassidic group.. and their rabbi was a
> "gadol".
I would say they aren't insane because they don't embrace someone
ready to nuke Jews, and they don't join a Holocaust deniers conference.
Picture a survivor of a community decimated by the holocaust attending
a denial conference. Picture someone in NK, the Protectors of the City,
hugging a man trying to nuke that city -- and all the NK, Satmar and
other Jews in it. That's simply insane, a clinical disconnection from
reality.
The subcontingent of NK-wannabe nutcases are nuts because they are
detatched from reality or basic human values.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger
> Those of us who read the Sunday Magazine of The New York Times are familiar
> with a column called "The Ethicist". The questions, for the most part, seem
> to address obvious issues. My father, obm, used to say, "If you have to ask
> if it's OK for you to do something you think is wrong, it is wrong. We call
> it conscience."
Not always. The meatier moral dilemmas are ones where both sides have
problems, or both sides have benefits, and you have to weigh which is
more right / more wrong.
Abortion is usually an example of needing to choose lesser evils. Can
one's conscience navigate the waters?
Second, if one wants to refine their conscience, so that they are better
people next year than they are today, they might want to teach it a thing
or to rather than sit as its student. For example, when I was born,
interracial marriage was something most Westerners' consciences would
have told them to avoid. Was it right? What about homosexual unions?
The general guideline -- if you even need to ask, try to avoid
it altogether -- is one I'd agree with. But it doesn't do away with
the value of having discussions with someone better informed and more
reflective of the values I want to internalize into my conscience.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
h3rman
> h3rman <crazymulg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The same is true with the Hebrew ? (`ayin), it represents at least two
> > sounds in the written Tora, one similar to the sound represented by
> > the Arabic `ayin. For example, He. ??? B`L in Greek is ???? (baal),
> > but ??? (`ZH) in Greek is ???? (Gaza).
>
> Except that the Seifer haYetzirah, which scholarship dates to 2nd or
> 3rd century CE <http://www.maqom.com/journal/paper14.pdf> (and tradition
> attributes to Abraham's authorship and Rabbi Aqiva's redaction), lists
> the letters that have two sounds, and ayin isn't on the list.
>
by that time this distinction was gone.
LXX is a few hundred years earlier.
> (Reish had two sounds at the time, though. There is no religious problem
> to saying a letter once had two sounds but now one is lost.)
>
True, there's no problem.
I find the halachic outlook on pronunciation very interesting, by the
way. Another thing that most people don't know is that the phoneme
`ayin had also in all probability disappeared from the actual Hebrew
pronunciation in the time it was still spoken (for example in the time
of the Mishna). The name Lazar is an example of that.
However many (most?) of us have been told that words like Ruach, Noa,
Shavua, Gavoah, etc. have the nice little patach at the end caused by
the guttural consonant. But this is inconsistent because the vowel
sign is under the consonant sign that follows it - an exception which
is explained when we assume that the patach was not pronounced
*before* the guttural consonant, but *instead* of it.
This fits the tradition that every charactor should be pronounced, it
also removes the exception to the rule that the vowel sign follows,
not precedes, the consonant expressed by the letter it stands below.
It may be just a tiny little detail, but for some reason I find this
very fascinating. :)
> It's hard to use reasoning and analogy from other languages to disprove
> an explicit statement of a speaker of the language.
>
It's equally hard to judge the value of "explicit statements" when
this statement is from antiquity and source dates are debatable.
Comparative linguistics has contributed to some interesting
clarifications in the case of, for instance, difficult text in Tora
(I'm not talking about emendations here). It also contributed to the
understanding of syntax. Among scholars there is not much debate
regarding the `ayin ghayin thing I explained above, I can't say much
more about it.
> More likely ayin was simply a sound somewhere between a gamma and silence,
> and the LXX only chose to write it as a gamma when it stuck out to his
> ear -- not by some deep rule or purpose.
That I think is highly unlikely. For your idea to be true, there ought
to be far more inconsistency than there actually is. In fact, the
situation is not100% consistent, but consistent enough that we can
rule out any 'creativity' on the part of the LXX "team". ;) But anyone
please feel free to challenge the communis opinio.
> "Gomoras", "Gazan" and "Pogor"
> from the LXX don't represent the sound of the the Hebrew `Amorah, `Azzah,
> or Pe`or that closely in the rest of the word anyway.
>
They do, really. Greek has case endings that might give that
impression, but those endings are not relevant in this respect. The S
in "Gomoras" for instance disappears in the accusative and the dative
cases (wanted to check, now where did my Septuagint go?).
> Hebrew would not be the only semitic language to only have one such
> letter: Canaanite languages and Phoenician only had one letter too.
> (And so, obviously, Aramaic and Syriac.) Given such a late date to the
> loss of the `ayin, even though popular among people studying biblical
> texts, places it after the use of Aramaic in Judea. A parallel loss in
> both languages at the same time?
>
The language people speak and the character of the phonemes they use
is rather independent. For instance, in Belgium both the speakers of
Dutch and the speakers of French share several phonemes, even though
this means that the Dutch don't have them. Flemish do not pronounce
the character [h] the way the Dutch do (h) but rather the way the
French speakers do. Another example is the way modern Aramaic is
pronounced in Arabic speaking countries. Even though Syriac lost its
gutturals in Antiquity, many of them are back in the spoken language -
and most people (native speakers) you'll ask will suppose that's the
authentic way.
> > 'Somewhere' (don't ask me exactly when) Hebrew lost both the `
> > ("`ayin") and the ? ("ghayin") phoneme, just as it lost the
> > distinction between the two distinct phonemes between ? ?in and ?
> > Samekh. The only difference is that you can see it in the latter case,
> > but you can't see it in the former case, because one character was
> > used for two phonemes there.
>
> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
> Psalms.
>
We don't disagree - I meant the two distinct phonemes (as once
expressed by samekh and sin) disappeared; but once they had been
there, otherwise the spelling makes no sense - and the spelling is
consistent. The spelling also reflects different etymology and
relationships to words in neighboring languages. The question of when
phoneme distinctions disappeared exactly is secondary to the fact they
did.
rgrds
hrmn
> --
> Micha Berger Today is the 40th day, which is
> mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.http://www.aishdas.org Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> h3rman <crazym...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>> 'Somewhere' (don't ask me exactly when) Hebrew lost both the `
>> ("`ayin") and the ? ("ghayin") phoneme, just as it lost the
>> distinction between the two distinct phonemes between ? ?in and ?
>> Samekh. The only difference is that you can see it in the latter case,
>> but you can't see it in the former case, because one character was
>> used for two phonemes there.
>
> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
> Psalms.
????????????????????
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
Dvora, I tried to send you an e-mail and it bounced because your
mailbox is full. Try to delete some stuff.
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
>
> snip
>
> >> 'Somewhere' (don't ask me exactly when) Hebrew lost both the `
> >> ("`ayin") and the ? ("ghayin") phoneme, just as it lost the
> >> distinction between the two distinct phonemes between ? ?in and ?
> >> Samekh. The only difference is that you can see it in the latter case,
> >> but you can't see it in the former case, because one character was
> >> used for two phonemes there.
>
> > No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
> > Psalms.
>
> ????????????????????
I think he means that where verses are in Aleph Beth order, sin
appears where samakh is expected or vice versa. I can't find an
example of this in the Tehillim. But in the Haftara we read yesterday
we find in the final verses "ve-eirastikh li" spelt with a sin, even
when elsewhere it is always spelt with a samakh. But those spellings
might not be directly interchangeable. The sin spelling is in the
Prophets, the samakh spelling is in Mishna and Talmudh. Additionally,
one may be Hebrew, the other Aramaic.
We do find in the Siddhur, examples of sin/samakh interchange. In the
samakh position in "Haadereth Vehaemuna" we find in the samakh
position "hasigui" spelt with samakh, and "vehasegev" spelt with sin.
In the Shabbath morning "El Adon" there is no stanza beginning with
samakh, a sin taking its place "Semeihim Beseitham". And if you look
at the Kalirian payyutim for the festival prayers, you will find
numerous examples of this.
IAs i say, I am unable to find such a direct substitution in Psalms
with alphabetic order verses. If Rebbi Berger has examples of such
substitution, I would beg him to share it with us.
Giorgies
wishing all Good Hodesh and love of fellow Jew as we approach the
month of "vayihan", ke-ish ehad beleiv ehad
Micha Berger
>> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
>> Psalms.
> ????????????????????
If sin can be used in the stead of samech when writing verses for each
letter of th alphabet, the two were obviously considered very connected.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 42nd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Malchus sheb'Yesod: Why is self-control and
Fax: (270) 514-1507 reliability crucial for universal brotherhood?
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
> > mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
> ...
> >> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
> >> Psalms.
> > ????????????????????
>
> If sin can be used in the stead of samech when writing verses for each
> letter of th alphabet, the two were obviously considered very connected.
Our posting appear to have crossed on the servers. As i ask, can you
give an example from the Psalms of such substitutions.? I can find
none, nor can my pious Hannies, who reads the entire Tehillim nearly
every day. In later literature, as I point out, such substitutions are
plentiful. Not from Biblical time though.
Gershon Eliyahu
wishing once more Good Hodesh
meir b.
> > mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
> ...
> >> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
> >> Psalms.
> > ????????????????????
>
> If sin can be used in the stead of samech when writing verses for each
> letter of th alphabet, the two were obviously considered very connected.
In all the alphabetical Psalms I'm aware of (25, 34, 111, 112,
119 (8-fold) and 145), sin is never substituted for samach. In
tefillah, we find it, as in e.g. Kel Adon, where nun is followed by a
phrase beginning with "semechim," a sin. The paytanim did it with
regularity. But in Tanach? Never, to the best of my knowledge.
Meir
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> Leon <wordswor...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Those of us who read the Sunday Magazine of The New York Times are familiar
>> with a column called "The Ethicist". The questions, for the most part, seem
>> to address obvious issues. My father, obm, used to say, "If you have to ask
>> if it's OK for you to do something you think is wrong, it is wrong. We call
>> it conscience."
>
> Not always. The meatier moral dilemmas are ones where both sides have
> problems, or both sides have benefits, and you have to weigh which is
> more right / more wrong.
>
> Abortion is usually an example of needing to choose lesser evils. Can
> one's conscience navigate the waters?
>
> Second, if one wants to refine their conscience, so that they are better
> people next year than they are today, they might want to teach it a thing
> or to rather than sit as its student. For example, when I was born,
> interracial marriage was something most Westerners' consciences would
> have told them to avoid. Was it right? What about homosexual unions?
>
> The general guideline -- if you even need to ask, try to avoid
> it altogether -- is one I'd agree with. But it doesn't do away with
> the value of having discussions with someone better informed and more
> reflective of the values I want to internalize into my conscience.
Thank you Micha. As usual making sense out of complicated items.
Dvora L
individual mails --
=
the only option it is giving me is --- delete all --
-
I sent my family mail address to you when I discovered this ---
Since it is unfamiliar to you -- it begins nanna ..... - the heading is
Shalom Chaver --- you may use this address for the time being --
-
Next week I will be doing my major PT and OT evaluation and G-d willing
I will be upgraded to a more advanced machine anyway ---
-
I hope you had a good Shabbos and and all is well with you and yours :-)
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
Moshe thinks your mailbox is full and you cannot get new email.
I think this may be because of junk mail from using your real email
address here, posting on usenet.
You can get rid of the junk mail by changing your email address. And
send a mass email to all your contacts of the change.
And this time don't post your new one on usenet.
Speak to your service provider or computer technician, they may be
able to provide you with a new one, and help you to configure your
programs, for sending email and reading usenet.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
That is wxactly what I meant with my "????????????????????". Thanks
for spelling it out, but I assumed Micha understood.
> Giorgies
> wishing all Good Hodesh and love of fellow Jew as we approach the
> month of "vayihan", ke-ish ehad beleiv ehad
Amen.
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> mos...@mm.huji.ac.il wrote:
>> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>> No, sin and samech were the same sound as far back as the acrostics in
>>> Psalms.
>
>> ????????????????????
>
> letter of th alphabet, the two were obviously considered very connected.
But where is there an example of such in _Psalms_??!!
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> I know my mail box is full - It is frozen and it will not let me delete
> individual mails --
> =
> the only option it is giving me is --- delete all --
Oy.
> -
> I sent my family mail address to you when I discovered this ---
> Since it is unfamiliar to you -- it begins nanna ..... - the heading is
> Shalom Chaver --- you may use this address for the time being --
I did.
> Next week I will be doing my major PT and OT evaluation and G-d willing
> I will be upgraded to a more advanced machine anyway ---
Wonderful.
Micha Berger
> Our posting appear to have crossed on the servers. As i ask, can you
> give an example from the Psalms of such substitutions.? I can find
> none, nor can my pious Hannies, who reads the entire Tehillim nearly
> every day. In later literature, as I point out, such substitutions are
> plentiful. Not from Biblical time though.
It seems I misremember. It still indicates the two had the same sound.
How early depends on who Hakalir was.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind?
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> Giorgies E. Geshahnna <geshah...@saintly.com> wrote:
>
> > Our posting appear to have crossed on the servers. As i ask, can you
> > give an example from the Psalms of such substitutions.? I can find
> > none, nor can my pious Hannies, who reads the entire Tehillim nearly
> > every day. In later literature, as I point out, such substitutions are
> > plentiful. Not from Biblical time though.
>
> It seems I misremember. It still indicates the two had the same sound.
> How early depends on who Hakalir was.
Perhaps I can help. Yegar sahadusa. As early as Humash Bereishith. And
even though clearly Aramaic, it is spelt with a seen.
Who authored the Kalirian poetry? Although I have heard of and
opinion, the source for which I am unable to locate right now, that he
lived in Second Temple times, I thinkn most historians would place him
in the post Talmudic eras. And certainly post Biblical.
GEG
Micha Berger
> opinion, the source for which I am unable to locate right now, that he
> lived in Second Temple times, I thinkn most historians would place him
> in the post Talmudic eras. And certainly post Biblical.
Tosafos identified R' Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer the son of
Rabbi Shim'on bar Yochai. Post Second Temple, but only by a couple
of generations.
Pre-Tiberian Mesorete, in any case.
Giorgies E. Geshahnna
> Giorgies E. Geshahnna <geshah...@saintly.com> wrote:
>
> > Who authored the Kalirian poetry? Although I have heard of and
> > opinion, the source for which I am unable to locate right now, that he
> > lived in Second Temple times, I thinkn most historians would place him
> > in the post Talmudic eras. And certainly post Biblical.
>
> Tosafos identified R' Eliezer haKalir with R' Eliezer the son of
> Rabbi Shim'on bar Yochai. Post Second Temple, but only by a couple
> of generations.
Where is this Tosafoth? I had heard of an opinion placing him in the
times when the Synhedron was still in Jerusalem, and in the Holy City
at least, Rosh hashanna was observed for only one day, and that is why
he wrote piyyut for only one day of Rhosh Hashanna.
>
> Pre-Tiberian Mesorete, in any case.
But post-Biblical, in any case.
GEG
Micha Berger
> times when the Synhedron was still in Jerusalem, and in the Holy City
> at least, Rosh hashanna was observed for only one day, and that is why
> he wrote piyyut for only one day of Rhosh Hashanna.
>> Pre-Tiberian Mesorete, in any case.
> But post-Biblical, in any case.
I'm not clear on your point. The two letters have the dame sound, and
had the same sound before any formal studies. Why would someone assume
that things weren't always thus?
You asked about the Tosafos. Who is it? I don't know, but it's not
Rabbeinu Tam. Here's a quote from Eli Turkel at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n178.shtml#04>:
> ... Tosafot (chagia 13a) state that it is R. Eliezer ben
> R. Shimon. Rabbenu Tam (quoted in Shibolei haleket) says he is not
> sure. Rashba (1:469) dates him earlier to R. Elizer ben Arach. Or Zarua
> also states that he is certainly a Tanna. Nodah beYehuda states that
> he lived before Abaye since they still numbered the days of the month
> according to witnesses in his day !. The Ari (Shaar kavanot 50) agrees
> with Tosafot. Rav Embden answers that he was a spark from the earlier
> Tanna and the Chida agreed with this. There is a piyyut for the 7th
> day of Pesach signed Eliezer ben Yaakov haKalir from Kiryat Sefer -
> so he had a different father than any of the tannaim.
> Shut Zichron Yosef assumes that Kalir lived during the Gaonic period.
> Nodah Beyehudah complains - who gave him the right to disagree with
> Tosafot and Rosh.
> The Admor from Muncasz says he believes the Ari over all facts and so
> the Kalir and R. Eliezer ben R. Shimon were actually the same people
> and not just a spark. He explains the father's name of Yaakov as being
> another name that R. Shimon bar Yochai had!!
> I am sorry but I have trouble with this approach...
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> I know my mail box is full - It is frozen and it will not let me delete
> individual mails --
> =
> the only option it is giving me is --- delete all --
> -
I see you may have this email problem.
Go here and download Paltalk
http://www.paltalk.com/en/start_chatting.shtml
It is a chat program, and there is a chat room where they help people
with computer problems.
The people there have the patience of saints.
They help for free.
They could solve a problem like yours.
You can talk to them through your microphone, it's mainly a voice
chat.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > from that point, to even before chanukah, there must have been other
> > apparent violations of the 3 oaths.
> > Returning to israel (before facing the 2nd exile). So Going up en
> > masse.
> > We must have fought enemies at the time.. So rising up against the
> > nations
>
> Let's talk about the spirit of the teaching about the 3 oaths, since we
> don't know if the oaths themselves were a historic phenomenon.
>
sure.. the nations were not gathered, and prob the jewish people were
not gathered.. But we could put it to a point..
explaining that song of songs foresaw the oath and it was made in
jeremiah's time after the 1st exile had begun.
> They didn't fight enemies until the Maccabees. They were a Persian and
> then Saleucid colony; fighting was the empire's problem.
>
They fought in King David's time. So, the first stay in israel.
Right from Joshua, they conquered.
They probably fought after Solomon too.. . During the first stay.
All this was of course before the 1st exile.
useful link
http://www.askmoses.com/article/173,2107657/Chart-of-Events-in-Jewish-History.html
Chart of Events in Jewish History by Rabbi Mattis Kantor
> But yes, the whole 2nd Temple phenomenon shows that if you think your
> return is part of the messianic process, you wouldn't pay attention to
> the oaths.
>
great q, how can we explain coming back to israel for the second
stay.. that's a good one for satmar or nk!
There is a school of thought that tries to make everybody from tenach
follow halacha from the gemara or RAMBAM.. The RAMBAM in hilchot
melachim, implies that if we presume somebody is the messiah, we can
fight.. see what happens. This is what rabbi akiva did, though he
should have picked nobody. He also says a king is appointed by a
prophet and sanhedrin. Though I don't think in the time of tenach,
they presumed anybody was the messiah(before the 2nd stay in israel),
and from what I have heard, I don't even think every king was
appointed by a prophet and sanhedrin.
I guess chanukah can be explained by the fact that they were not in
exile at the time. They were in israel, the 2nd temple was there.
why did the gemara have reb zeira and rav yehuda apply the 3 oaths to
themselves? They, I guess, thought the 3 oaths applied when in exile.
Any exile. So although made in the 1st exile.. They apply to the 2nd
exile too.
since they are metaphorical oaths.. I have heard them called -rules-
for living in exile.
What signs did Zerubavel see that made them know it was the end of the
1st exile?
Consider though, zerubavel was a prophet..
so they may well have known!
> So, messianic Religious Zionists have no problem. Today, they are
> the majority of the RZ community. However, among the known thinkers,
> that position is uniquely that of the Rabbis Kook (father and son). R'
> Reines (who founded Mizrachi in the 19th cent), Rabbis JB and Aaron
> Soloveitchik, etc... did not make messianic claims. R' JB Soloveitchik
> explicitly bowed out of the question, saying it was one for prophets,
> and otherwise could not be the basis for action.
>
I have heard it said, we don't pasken by tenach.
and halacha as per gemara, has prob developed since then anyway..
> There is a simple problem with the oaths: they defy a biblical
> obligation. Oaths made that are against the Torah aren't even binding.
> Therefore, the straight halachicist would ignore this bit of aggadita
> (moral and/or philosophical teaching, in contrast to halakhah) when
> it comes to decision-making and get on with fulfilling his duties and
> recommended actions.
>
If one thinks even that an aggadeta in gemara defies the torah, then
you can assume you misunderstood the aggadeta . Not ignore it.
The passivism contradicts a large bulk of tenach.. It does appear that
judaism has 2 states of being. Galus and Geulah. Each has its time and
behaviour.
After the 1st exile, they are guests living in exile, they have to
behave, they have to serve King Neb and his sons. Pray for the
wellbeing of the state they are in. (infact, I think it says all
nations had to serve King Neb, in that first exile..)
> > The talmud relates the 3 oaths to a passage in yirmiyahu and
> > passage(s) in solomon's song of songs. So if you say that the
> > association gives us the time they were made. Then who is to say the
> > oaths were in yirmiyahu's time and not solomon's?
>
> The talmudic quote we're discussing places the oath at the time of
> departure from Israel. Therefore it could only be Yirmiyahu's day.
>
The metaphorical meaning given by RAMBAM has solomon making the jewish
people metaphorically take a vow.
http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-iv.html
RAMBAM must have got that metaphorical meaning from the 3 oaths. And,
prob foreseeing the time in jeremiah.. when G-d through jeremiah,
tells the jews to serve King neb.. to behave. Essentially, to abide by
the 2 oaths they-the jewish people, made.
(of course.. with the 3 oaths.. they-gentiles , took 1, we took 2)
> ...
>
> > you say it was consecrated chanukah time , that was around 168BCE.
> > What did that consecration involve. Why did they wait so long ?
>
> It was reconsecrated Chanukah time.
>
> And that's not "I say", that's translating the word "Chanukah".
>
that makes sense.. So it had already been consecrated, it had been
desecrated.. and then was consecrated again.
<snip>
> > but no pre zionist source that says the 3 oaths were interdependent.
>
> None says they aren't. It's simply not discussed enough until the
> Zionist era to argue from silence
>
well a made up thing can't be taken too seriously.
nevertheless.. common sense might allow for self defence.. If they are
currently over-persecuting us, we can rise against them.
(of course, if they force us to chillul hashem, we have to die rather
than do it. But I guess we could fight them too. Even if the gun or
sword is to our head)
<snip>
> The subcontingent of NK-wannabe nutcases are nuts because they are
> detatched from reality or basic human values.
>
I like the fact that they value truth though. At least they have their
arguments on the table, and the internet.
I really was not aware until quite late in life, that all these
charedim were non or anti-zionist!! It was only after I heard NK, and
I spoke to them about zionism and anti-zionism, that I realised how
much charedim -hate- or -laugh at- religious zionists, and don't even
recognise them as a legitimate orthodox position. They think it's
like reform. They only admit it if asked.. Maybe they are afraid it
will hurt the way they are perceived if people knew! At least NK are
honest and forthright and not ashamed about their beliefs. Charedim
just play psychological games, not mentioning it too loudly lest it
gives them bad press or averts their kiruv.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> I'm failing to see the problem.
>
> There is an obligation to disambiguate alef and ayin as well as ches
> and khaf. That is one of the halakhos of pronunciation.
>
> That's a far smaller claim than saying that all of pronunciation is
> defined by halakhah. How one fulfills the constraints of halakhah is up
> to custom, and therefore custom is inviolate, not the theory.
>
> So, on this I'm in partial agreement with the kollelnik and the NK guy.
>
The reason why JNC(the guy in the audio) brought up about the shulchan
aruch saying we should distinguish between alef and ayin, was not to
prove that we should all change to the most correct pronunciation that
we can ascertain..
It was because ashkenazim do not distinguish. (he posits that this is
because we and our ancestors did not have the distinction in our
mother tongue).
The kollelnik and NK guy - both ashkenazim - would say we should
continue with the pronunciation we have. That would mean not
distinguishing between aleph and ayin.
There may be some ashkenazim(of ashkenazi custom) that do (who?
besides the dayan I mentioned). But the majourity don't. Which means
if you hold by this idea that custom is as strong as law, and that
reason causes you to not distinguish between aleph and ayin, then that
reason is causing you to go against the shulchan aruch.
(JNC never went into why he thinks "custom as strong as law" has no
real basis - beyond perhaps something superficial. Interesting that
sephardim , who also believe the gemara, do not say custom is as
strong as law)
note- many would say as a default position, that we should change to
the correct pronunciation - if we know it. And at least that we
should not stick confortably to a pronunciation that we know to be
wrong, when others have a better likelyhood of being the original, or
have it closer to the original. That's quite a natural argument.. Not
a halachic thing that says "you must pronounce every letter and vowel
correctly".
<snip>
Micha Berger
> There may be some ashkenazim(of ashkenazi custom) that do (who?
> besides the dayan I mentioned). But the majourity don't. Which means
> if you hold by this idea that custom is as strong as law, and that
> reason causes you to not distinguish between aleph and ayin, then that
> reason is causing you to go against the shulchan aruch.
Custom isn't as strong as law. Custom may indicate that even back in
the day that the SA wrote it, we had a contrary ruling. But a custom
that defies the law is an errant one (minhag ta'us).
However, my friend Yanky tells me that we /did/ have an ayin, and its
sound was somewhere in the same area as /n/. Perhaps the /ng/ (not a
sound used in English, like "Nguyen") of many Sepharadim.
But the fellow on the recording also wants to disambiguate tes and tav,
kaf and quf, etc... For that, there is custom vs logic, not custom vs
law. That's where he and I differ. Custom has some bindingness, and
thinking how things ought to be doesn't outrank it.
My Hebrew may have a ches and an ayin, it may be accurate on which sheva
and qamatz is which more often than most, and I may even hit more of the
stresses correctly, but it sounds like a pendantic Ashkenazi Hebrew. Not
like Arabic.
BTW, what drives my children crazier than all of that is my insistance
in putting commas where the meaning indicates they belong. E.g. when I'm
chazan in a YI-style minyan, the tune after putting away the seifer Torah
goes:
Hashiveinu Hashem eilekha
venashuuuuuvah (it doesn't fit the melody)
chadeish yameinu keqedem.
The usual placement would translate to
Return us, Hashem
to You and we will return;
renew our days as before.
Obviously eilekhah, "to You", requires being in the first phrase, not
the second.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 46th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 6 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Netzach sheb'Malchus: How can some forms of
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "unity" be over domineering?
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > guy..
> ...
> > thing. It was an individual thing. And he said he believed in the idea
> > that if you asked a rav a question, you are bound by the answer. He
> > said if you want to ask another rabbi - to get a second opinion, you
> > have to ask the first one's permission.
>
> I would say that:
>
> (1) It's individual, because halakhah allows for a plurality of voices.
> "Its ways are ways of pleasantness" is written in the plural.
>
how about, it's individual because, as an article you once wrote says.
originally/classically, the phrase comes from a gemara in chulin ,
where a scholar uses his daas torah..His own understanding.
> (2) It's also relative, not all or nothing. There is no qualitative
> difference between "the gedolim" who have daas Torah, and the rest of us
> who do not. Rather, the more someone studied and lived Torah, the more it
> shapes how they think, and therefore the more it shapes how they analyze
> your question. More vs less, not a classed society of have and have-not.
>
The charedim would say every decision should be decided according to
the best torah knowledge available..
(as if the gedolim know better what job you should get than you do)
> Your Rabbi sounds like he may be conflating two things (or you didn't
> pick up on a distinction): halachic authority and using their wisdom
> outside of the realm of halakhah. There is a gray area in between --
> things that are against Torah values but not quite prohibited, or even
> less, they have impact on one's religious life in some minor way.
>
I don't think the charedim would say daas torah is about using wisdom
outside the realm of halacha. Because they would probably find a
way to say that somebody that goes against it is breaking halacha..
Zionism - avodah zara. foreign service. serving the state.. (rav
kook's religious zionism does. They would find some excuse to comdemn -
all). Infact they would say jewish hashkafa is charedi hashkafa.
(which is of course "daas torah" collective, on everything).
So charedi hashkafa.. 3 oaths. Rules for living in exile. Jer
27(referred to in 3 oaths). And I think we are in exile - kahane says
so and so do the non zionists..I have heard that the definition of
exile is that the temple has been destroyed? ..
The hashkafa is to be a wimp. Don't rise up.. If somebody comes to
kill you, then run away.
And the charedim, would say that all that matters is prayer and torah.
Any competing hashkafa.. is not serving G-d.. It's Avodah Zara -
foreign service. And that's a big sin.
So to say it is not halachic, I don't think the charedim would agree.
And regarding their take on the 3 oaths, and on rising up against the
nations onf self decfence..
You cannot rise up against the nations.. (no collective self defence
then)
And of course individual self defence for them, is run away.
Here is a quote from this page, .
They quote from the Maharal, and a story regarding Rabbi Avraham
Galanti
So that's a good argument that it's not just them, it's traditional..
We all know the maharal.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
The Maharal of Prague (Rabbi Betzalel Lowy who lived in the 17th
century) explained that the prohibition of violating the Three Oaths
applies even if the other nations force the Jewish People to do so.
In addition, he wrote in his book Netzach Yisroel (Chapter 24) that
these Oaths may not be modified so as to affect the decree of Exile,
and he expanded on the description in the Midrashic text on Song of
Songs 2:18.
“Even if the nations wanted to kill the Jews with terrible torture,
the Jews are forbidden to change the applicability of the Oaths. This
is relevant to every one of these oaths and must be understood.”
Therefore, not only is it forbidden to leave the Exile even with the
permission of the nations, but even if they force the Jewish People to
do so under pain of death, it is forbidden to violate these Oaths in
the same way it is required to give up one’s life rather than accept
another religion.
Even during the forced conversions under the kingdom of Portugal in
the late 15th century it was forbidden to violate the Oath.
Rabbi Avraham Galanti, who other rabbis described as outstanding in
his level of holiness, and who was a student of the great kabbalist
Rabbi Moshe Cordovero in the 16th century, explained aspects of the
Three Oaths in his book Zechus Avos [Merit of the Patriarchs] where he
recounts how some Jews in Portugal wanted to revolt against the
kingdom rather than submit to forced conversion. A rabbi quoted the
verses from Song of Songs to the people who wanted to revolt, and
pointed to the Talmudic tractate Ketuboth p. 111 which states that G-d
made the Jewish People take three Oaths – one was that they should not
rebel against G-d by rebelling against the nations. Thereafter the
Jews submitted to death rather than forced conversion. Although the
description in Ketuboth does not say that the Oaths involve directly
rebelling against G-d, it is clear that the very violation of these
Oaths is rebellion against G-d himself.
> For example, a career choice will impact how much time one has for other
> things. So in some way, there is religious content to the decision. But
> that's not the same as asking if I ought to drink milk that was not
> watched by Jews, or if I'm obligated to pay income tax on something that
> most people in my country do not.
>
> I think the need to ask the first rabbi's permission is only in the
> halachic realm, where their decision has legal interpretive power,
> not merely well-informed advice.
On what do you base a rabbi's halachic authority?
the story of abbaye rabba and the well ?
They would say you have you ask the rabbis for every decision. You
know they say that, surely..
Because I suppose daas torah is about avodas hashem. What is the best
way to serve G-d. In every decision one makes.
Who knows best? The leading greatest torah scholars of the
generation... Or the best available to you.
>
> > I mentioned to him that Anti-zionists would say they are following
> > Daas Torah in terms of the majourity.. He said, that after the
> > holocaust, the majourity of jews.. or better, what counts.. the
> > majourity of religious/orthodox jews, and their rabbis. Were not Anti-
> > Zionist. The Anti-Zionists were largely wiped out in the holocaust.
> > (I guess they are growing now.. I did hear one person say israel is
> > 30% charedi and 30% national religious)
>
> It is arguable that the faxcts on the ground changed. The Zionism that
> R' Chaim Brisker was against is a different movement than the Zionism
> of today. Then, Zionism was an Ism out to provide a Jewish identity to
> *replace* that provided by the Jewish religion. Today, it's a conservative
> force whose primary foe is the assimilationist post-Zionism.
you underestimate how anti religious the seculars are.
you think a homosexual parade in jerusalem are conservative? (I heard
that the charedim might have stopped that one, or at least ruined it -
rising up against the jewish govt is ok!)
by "post zionist" do you mean bi-national state?
I don't know how people are defining post zionism.. But haaretz has an
article claiming that Olmert is a post-zionist. I don't see the
state in a battle against post-zionism. Pre 1990, don't konw when. A
bill was passed to make the israeli anthem official. It was rejected,
because the arab mk at the time, didn't liek it - it's not his anthem
(imagine him singing the words "the soul of a jew yearning").
You think olmert is preserving the jewish character of the state?
These are seculars.. Turning israel into any other country - e.g. "a
hebrew speaking portugal". The only thing they keep is the law of
return.. thank G-d. .
> I would
> argue that his position and those of his contemporaries is simply not
> in reference to today's decision.
>
Rav kook was wrong. The secular zionists were not a baal teshuva
movement. They are still anti religious secular zionists.. Just
ruling over a country with an increasing number of charedim..
Micha Berger
>> (1) It's individual, because halakhah allows for a plurality of voices.
>> "Its ways are ways of pleasantness" is written in the plural.
> how about, it's individual because, as an article you once wrote says.
>> originally/classically, the phrase comes from a gemara in chulin ,
>> where a scholar uses his daas torah..His own understanding.
That would be looking at the words, not their meaning. "Da'as Torah" as
the idiom is used today is clearly unrelated to the gemara's usage.
Which I believe was the point I was making in that earlier post.
>> (2) It's also relative, not all or nothing. There is no qualitative
>> difference between "the gedolim" who have daas Torah, and the rest of us
>> who do not. Rather, the more someone studied and lived Torah, the more it
>> shapes how they think, and therefore the more it shapes how they analyze
>> your question. More vs less, not a classed society of have and have-not.
> The charedim would say every decision should be decided according to
> the best torah knowledge available..
> (as if the gedolim know better what job you should get than you do)
Not knowledge in the senser of data. Wisdom. Thought shaped by the Torah
knowledge. So that it has little to do with the particular ideas in
question.
But I would agree with you. Even given the premise that someone who
spent a lifetime studying Torah has a mind that works better than mine
and an instinct more in line with what G-d wants, if he doesn't have the
data to work with, or even know the topic well ernough to identify all
the necessary questions to ask, I don't see how that will produce a
better answer.
>> Your Rabbi sounds like he may be conflating two things (or you didn't
>> pick up on a distinction): halachic authority and using their wisdom
>> outside of the realm of halakhah. There is a gray area in between --
>> things that are against Torah values but not quite prohibited, or even
>> less, they have impact on one's religious life in some minor way.
> I don't think the charedim would say daas torah is about using wisdom
> outside the realm of halacha. Because they would probably find a
> way to say that somebody that goes against it is breaking halacha..
Well, at this point I do think they believe that defying rabbinic advice
is against halakhah.
But that advice isn't limited to halachic questions. One can't be O
without believing in an authority system WRT halakhah. But when it comes
to choosing between two permissable job opportunities... The question is
outside the realm of halakhah. It might relate to which is holier, but
that is at most mussar / aggadic, not halachic.
...
> They quote from the Maharal, and a story regarding Rabbi Avraham
> Galanti
> So that's a good argument that it's not just them, it's traditional..
> We all know the maharal.
> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
Don't quote nutcases who attend Ahminidijad's Holocaust denial party.
Hugging and kissing someone who is plotting to kill 5.5 mm Jews. Denying
their own family's deaths. They aren't representative of anyone sane. Not
even the core body of Neturei Karta (who disowned them years ago).
In contrast, the Satmar Rav, who was anti-zionist as they come, said
Tehillim and launched learning campaigns during the 6 Day and Yom Kippur
wars. Just like the Zionists. Jews in trouble are Jews in trouble,
even if you disagree on the advisedness of how they got there.
...
>> For example, a career choice will impact how much time one has for other
>> things. So in some way, there is religious content to the decision. But
>> that's not the same as asking if I ought to drink milk that was not
>> watched by Jews, or if I'm obligated to pay income tax on something that
>> most people in my country do not.
>> I think the need to ask the first rabbi's permission is only in the
>> halachic realm, where their decision has legal interpretive power,
>> not merely well-informed advice.
> On what do you base a rabbi's halachic authority? > the story of
abbaye rabba and the well ?
The verse about veering left or right.
Conceptually, the authority is based on the basic idea of how Oral Law
is transmitted. Without the teacher-student chain, there is nothing.
And in fact, a greater mind doesn't guarantee greater authority. One is
bound to follow one's own rabbi. The greater mind, though, will tend to
mean more students.
At some point enough people from one community follow one position
for that possition to also get nature of minhag, and thus more binding.
(Such as not wearing tefillin on chol hamo'ed in Israel.) And in fact if
it's national, such as the decision of the High Court (eg the Sanhedrin)
then the decision is binding on everyone.
...
> Who knows best? The leading greatest torah scholars of the
> generation... Or the best available to you.
A decision requires mapping the real to the ideal. Often knowing the
ideal is less valuable than knowing the details of the situation to
which they are to be applied.
>> It is arguable that the faxcts on the ground changed. The Zionism that
>> R' Chaim Brisker was against is a different movement than the Zionism
>> of today. Then, Zionism was an Ism out to provide a Jewish identity to
>> *replace* that provided by the Jewish religion. Today, it's a conservative
>> force whose primary foe is the assimilationist post-Zionism.
> you underestimate how anti religious the seculars are.
I disagree with your portrayal of "the seculars" as though they
were all anti-dati. It's more like a vocal 10%.
A big difference between the eras is trend. We don't have children
rushing out to ever new Ism that such Isms (Zionism, Communism,
Marxism, Freud) post a religious threat. At a time when children
were fleeing O, the challenge was far greater.
Now the general flow, more like a trickle, but it's TOWARD O, not away.
And those who leave are far more often doing it to leave, a push away
from O, not out of the attractiveness of something else.
As I was saying about the post-Zionists... Zionism isn't a stellar success
at retention, and their children want American lifestyles, whether in
America or in Peres's "Hong-Kong of the Middle East", and don't speak
in terms of a bimillennial hope to "be a free nation in our land".
Those are real changed realia.
>> I would
>> argue that his position and those of his contemporaries is simply not
>> in reference to today's decision.
> Rav kook was wrong. The secular zionists were not a baal teshuva
> movement. They are still anti religious secular zionists.. Just
> ruling over a country with an increasing number of charedim..
I agree with you on that. Rav Kook was wrong for a more obvious reason.
He thought that the resettlement trend that started in the early 19th cent
was the begining of a dawn of redemption. That things would inexorably
progress to full redemption.
But he died Sep 1 (Elul 3) 1935, two weeks before the Nuremberg Race Laws.
I do not know how he would have responded. Would he have taken the
approach that sometimes the sun comes behind a cloud, as his followers
later did? Would he have abandoned the whole sunrise metaphor? Would
he have invoked the "birthpangs of the messiah"?
But in either case, things didn't play out according to his theory's
predictions.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I would say that:
> >> (1) It's individual, because halakhah allows for a plurality of voices.
> >> "Its ways are ways of pleasantness" is written in the plural.
> > how about, it's individual because, as an article you once wrote says.
> >> originally/classically, the phrase comes from a gemara in chulin ,
> >> where a scholar uses his daas torah..His own understanding.
>
> That would be looking at the words, not their meaning. "Da'as Torah"
I suppose in the gemara, there is no concept of Daas Torah, other than
the meaning of the words, applied to an individual.
The concept is alot less firm if it is not in the gemara. The question
arises - where is it? And it seems people have to search around, and
offer are alot of different answers, which often suggests that none
of them are good enough..
> as
> the idiom is used today is clearly unrelated to the gemara's usage.
> Which I believe was the point I was making in that earlier post.
yep
>
> >> (2) It's also relative, not all or nothing. There is no qualitative
> >> difference between "the gedolim" who have daas Torah, and the rest of us
> >> who do not. Rather, the more someone studied and lived Torah, the more it
> >> shapes how they think, and therefore the more it shapes how they analyze
> >> your question. More vs less, not a classed society of have and have-not.
> > The charedim would say every decision should be decided according to
> > the best torah knowledge available..
> > (as if the gedolim know better what job you should get than you do)
>
> Not knowledge in the senser of data. Wisdom. Thought shaped by the Torah
> knowledge. So that it has little to do with the particular ideas in
> question.
>
If getting into Chochma Bina and Daas.. (wisdom, understanding,
knowledge )
They could have called it Chochma Torah, but that sounds a bit
arrogant.. Or, Chabad Torah, but that might ruffle a few feathers.
I guess in the gemara, the term Daas Torah does refer to more than the
meaning of the words, it refers to Chochmah, Bina and Daas ?
> But I would agree with you. Even given the premise that someone who
> spent a lifetime studying Torah has a mind that works better than mine
> and an instinct more in line with what G-d wants, if he doesn't have the
> data to work with, or even know the topic well ernough to identify all
> the necessary questions to ask, I don't see how that will produce a
> better answer.
>
> >> Your Rabbi sounds like he may be conflating two things (or you didn't
> >> pick up on a distinction): halachic authority and using their wisdom
> >> outside of the realm of halakhah. There is a gray area in between --
> >> things that are against Torah values but not quite prohibited, or even
> >> less, they have impact on one's religious life in some minor way.
> > I don't think the charedim would say daas torah is about using wisdom
> > outside the realm of halacha. Because they would probably find a
> > way to say that somebody that goes against it is breaking halacha..
>
> Well, at this point I do think they believe that defying rabbinic advice
> is against halakhah.
>
> But that advice isn't limited to halachic questions. One can't be O
> without believing in an authority system WRT halakhah. But when it comes
> to choosing between two permissable job opportunities... The question is
> outside the realm of halakhah. It might relate to which is holier, but
> that is at most mussar / aggadic, not halachic.
>
If one is too devoted to earning money, could they say it's avodah
zara?
and halachically forbidden.
> ...
>
> > They quote from the Maharal, and a story regarding Rabbi Avraham
> > Galanti
> > So that's a good argument that it's not just them, it's traditional..
> > We all know the maharal.
> >http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
>
> Don't quote nutcases who attend Ahminidijad's Holocaust denial party.
> Hugging and kissing someone who is plotting to kill 5.5 mm Jews. Denying
> their own family's deaths. They aren't representative of anyone sane. Not
> even the core body of Neturei Karta (who disowned them years ago).
>
> In contrast, the Satmar Rav, who was anti-zionist as they come, said
> Tehillim and launched learning campaigns during the 6 Day and Yom Kippur
> wars. Just like the Zionists. Jews in trouble are Jews in trouble,
> even if you disagree on the advisedness of how they got there.
>
It doesn't matter who provides the information, as long as the
information is sound.
According to them, the rambam's epistle to yemen was saying not to go
up en masse, and was getting at the 3 oaths.
I don't think the satmar rebbe would disagree. I don't think most non
zionists would disagree.
The fact that they stand with terrorists is not relevant. And they are
on record for saying that they don't deny the holocaust. They were
just using that venue as a vehicle for their message, and the arabs
welcomed it for obvious reasons.
Barry Chamish went to speak at a holocaust denial conference. (It
doesn't invalidate what he says about Rabin, and he was infact going
as a "holocaust believer", and intending to argue with them - and sell
his book)
I have a copy of BDB on my shelf, as i'm sure, some rabbis do. It was
written by christians , but that doesn't change the value of its
contents.
> ...
>
> >> For example, a career choice will impact how much time one has for other
> >> things. So in some way, there is religious content to the decision. But
> >> that's not the same as asking if I ought to drink milk that was not
> >> watched by Jews, or if I'm obligated to pay income tax on something that
> >> most people in my country do not.
> >> I think the need to ask the first rabbi's permission is only in the
> >> halachic realm, where their decision has legal interpretive power,
> >> not merely well-informed advice.
> > On what do you base a rabbi's halachic authority? > the story of abbaye
> > rabba and the well ?
>
>
>
> The verse about veering left or right.
>
from what I remember, that's referring to listening to the sanhedrin
in your time(if one exists). That's in the pshat and in the talmud.
but later took on other meanings, rashi said bet din, ramban- sages.
Rabbi Kahane once said, the big problem is not jews for jesus, it's
jews for nothing.
> As I was saying about the post-Zionists... Zionism isn't a stellar success
> at retention, and their children want American lifestyles, whether in
> America or in Peres's "Hong-Kong of the Middle East", and don't speak
> in terms of a bimillennial hope to "be a free nation in our land".
>
> Those are real changed realia.
>
> >> I would
> >> argue that his position and those of his contemporaries is simply not
> >> in reference to today's decision.
> > Rav kook was wrong. The secular zionists were not a baal teshuva
> > movement. They are still anti religious secular zionists.. Just
> > ruling over a country with an increasing number of charedim..
>
> I agree with you on that. Rav Kook was wrong for a more obvious reason.
> He thought that the resettlement trend that started in the early 19th cent
> was the begining of a dawn of redemption. That things would inexorably
> progress to full redemption.
>
> But he died Sep 1 (Elul 3) 1935, two weeks before the Nuremberg Race Laws.
>
You don't know that he is wrong on that.
I suppose rabbi avraham kook's son, rabbi tzvi yehuda kook continued
that belief, and He died in 1982.
Rabbi Yissachar Shlomo Teichtal , while saying we shouldn't pretend to
understand G-d's ways (as a reply to those that say it cannot be the
beginning). He said that it's possible that G-d used wicked people to
do the right thing for the wrong reason. Because if good people were
to do it, then wicked people would try to destroy it. So having wicked
people do it, protects it from wicked people destroying it. I think he
mentions a midrash where G-d uses such a tactic.
Rabbi Kahane also thought that it was the beginning of the redemption.
When talking to a group of noachides, he posed the question- How can
the this be the beginning of the redemption, look at how wicked the
people driving it are.. And he responded from (perhaps Ezekiel ch 36),
he said G-d says, he will bring us back, not for our sake, but for his
sake. And so even if we are terrible and not deserving, he will bring
us back.
note- where kahane differed greatly with rav kook, was that rav kook
's religious zionists were mamlachtim - obedient to the state always.
The settler rabbis that supported the disengagement, were doing so for
that reason. The mamlachtim didn't actively do anything to stop the
gay parade either. (whereas non zionist charedim did).
<snip>
Micha Berger
>> Not knowledge in the senser of data. Wisdom. Thought shaped by the Torah
>> knowledge. So that it has little to do with the particular ideas in
>> question.
> If getting into Chochma Bina and Daas.. (wisdom, understanding,
> knowledge )
> They could have called it Chochma Torah, but that sounds a bit
> arrogant.. Or, Chabad Torah, but that might ruffle a few feathers.
But it's not. It's da'as -- they're seeking rabbinic advice because of
how all those years of Torah study changed the way the person thinks.
> I guess in the gemara, the term Daas Torah does refer to more than the
> meaning of the words, it refers to Chochmah, Bina and Daas ?
In the gemara, da'as Torah is the source of a halachic decision that is
compelled by the Torah. By contrast, da'as notah (lit: leaning) is where
the evidence only leans in favor of one ruling over the other. The sole
use is Chullin 30b.
Notice that this is a totally different topic, not just meaning, than
contemporary usage.
But the gemara is also talking about da'as, in the sense of knowledge,
and doesn't really refer to chokhmah or binah.
>> But that advice isn't limited to halachic questions. One can't be O
>> without believing in an authority system WRT halakhah. But when it comes
>> to choosing between two permissable job opportunities... The question is
>> outside the realm of halakhah. It might relate to which is holier, but
>> that is at most mussar / aggadic, not halachic.
> If one is too devoted to earning money, could they say it's avodah
> zara?
> and halachically forbidden.
And what if the choice is whether to work for hedge fund A or hedge fund
B?
>> > They quote from the Maharal, and a story regarding Rabbi Avraham
>> > Galanti
>> > So that's a good argument that it's not just them, it's traditional..
>> > We all know the maharal.
>> >http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/3strongoaths.cfm
...
> According to them, the rambam's epistle to yemen was saying not to go
> up en masse, and was getting at the 3 oaths.
> I don't think the satmar rebbe would disagree. I don't think most non
> zionists would disagree.
Actually, not all non-Zionists based themselves on the three oaths. But
point taken.
> The fact that they stand with terrorists is not relevant. And they are
> on record for saying that they don't deny the holocaust. They were
> just using that venue as a vehicle for their message, and the arabs
> welcomed it for obvious reasons.
It is somewhat relevant, in that you're quoting what they believe the
Rambam was "getting at". The conjectures of the psychotic /are/ suspect.
But as you already wrote, it's not just theirs.
...
> I have a copy of BDB on my shelf, as i'm sure, some rabbis do. It was
> written by christians , but that doesn't change the value of its
> contents.
I do!
>> I agree with you on that. Rav Kook was wrong for a more obvious reason.
>> He thought that the resettlement trend that started in the early 19th cent
>> was the begining of a dawn of redemption. That things would inexorably
>> progress to full redemption.
>> But he died Sep 1 (Elul 3) 1935, two weeks before the Nuremberg Race Laws.
> You don't know that he is wrong on that.
??? The Holocaust wasn't a major setback on the road to redemption? Even
if one attempted to address the holocaust theologically such that they
can show is was a necessary part of the redemptive process (as I see you
accepted), it's not a gradual revelation. The entire exile experience
could be explained in similar terms. And yes, R' Yehudah calls these
two millenia the two millenia of the messiah, but I don't think you're
asserting that "reshit tzemichat ge'ulateinu" (the beginning of the
blooming of our redemption) was the destruction of the 2nd Temple!
The fact that one can ask, and indeed any sane person MUST ask, "Where
was G-d in the Holocaust?" shows that Rav Kook's expectation of gradual
revelation wasn't born out. Revelation answers, not asks.
The presence of the greatest tragedy (in sheer human lives) in the history
of the exile makes it impossible to say that redemption started dawning
beforehand. The Holocaust was a period of hesteir Panim, G-d hiding His
"Face" from us, darkness, not revelation and an increase of light.
> I suppose rabbi avraham kook's son, rabbi tzvi yehuda kook continued
> that belief, and He died in 1982.
Not really. In RZYK's day, the dawn was deemed to begin in 1948. This
avoids the problem with RAYK's belief that it began with the yishuv.
Which is why those poor saps in Gush Katif were told by their rabbis
that "zeh lo yihyeh, zeh lo yiqreh" (it won't be, it won't happen;
I'm quoting a song written shortly before the expulsion) that they will
be kicked out of Azza. After all, once the sun starts rising, it is a
steady progression forward.
Which is why a friend of mine once quipped that R' Zvi Yehudah Kook's
real yahrzeit is the 10th of Av, 5765. No Religious Zionist today can
believe his philosophy without some adaptation or adulteration. It was
disproven by historical events.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Not knowledge in the senser of data. Wisdom. Thought shaped by the Torah
> >> knowledge. So that it has little to do with the particular ideas in
> >> question.
> > If getting into Chochma Bina and Daas.. (wisdom, understanding,
> > knowledge )
> > They could have called it Chochma Torah, but that sounds a bit
> > arrogant.. Or, Chabad Torah, but that might ruffle a few feathers.
>
> But it's not. It's da'as -- they're seeking rabbinic advice because of
> how all those years of Torah study changed the way the person thinks.
>
doesn't Daas mean knowledge? if not,
what is the definition of chochma bina and daas ?
> > I guess in the gemara, the term Daas Torah does refer to more than the
> > meaning of the words, it refers to Chochmah, Bina and Daas ?
>
> In the gemara, da'as Torah is the source of a halachic decision that is
> compelled by the Torah. By contrast, da'as notah (lit: leaning) is where
> the evidence only leans in favor of one ruling over the other. The sole
> use is Chullin 30b.
>
> Notice that this is a totally different topic, not just meaning, than
> contemporary usage.
>
> But the gemara is also talking about da'as, in the sense of knowledge,
> and doesn't really refer to chokhmah or binah.
>
from what you are saying, it seems to refer not just to torah
knowledge, but to wisdom and understanding. The whole thing, what (it
would be nice) comes from a life devoted to torah.
> >> But that advice isn't limited to halachic questions. One can't be O
> >> without believing in an authority system WRT halakhah. But when it comes
> >> to choosing between two permissable job opportunities... The question is
> >> outside the realm of halakhah. It might relate to which is holier, but
> >> that is at most mussar / aggadic, not halachic.
> > If one is too devoted to earning money, could they say it's avodah
> > zara?
> > and halachically forbidden.
>
> And what if the choice is whether to work for hedge fund A or hedge fund
> B?
if both monopolise on time, the answer might be neither! And to do
something else. And if they don't, then the answer might be either.
I don't think quantity of money is an obstacle though. The frummest
seem to be quite positive about earning money, asking G-d for more,
it's the working-time thing that bothers them.
<snip>
> >> I agree with you on that. Rav Kook was wrong for a more obvious reason.
> >> He thought that the resettlement trend that started in the early 19th cent
> >> was the begining of a dawn of redemption. That things would inexorably
> >> progress to full redemption.
> >> But he died Sep 1 (Elul 3) 1935, two weeks before the Nuremberg Race Laws.
> > You don't know that he is wrong on that.
>
> ??? The Holocaust wasn't a major setback on the road to redemption?
you saying it is a road to redemption suggests that you agree with the
idea that the redemption started with jews going to israel in say the
1880s, first wave of aliyah (first wave according to joan
peters ;-) )..
it is unpopular to give reasons or the holocaust.. e.g. reform. or
anti-zionism, or zionism. But the nach does mention about G-d
punishing us by us being led like sheep to the slaughter.
From a young age, I realised that if G-d is going to bring us back to
the land, when we are so comfortable in exile, then really the obvious
thing that could bring us , is terrible persecution.
Here are 2 horrifying ideas, one from rabbi kahane, another from a non
zionist. Both trying to provide a reason for the holocaust.
I didn't hear it, and the person telling me probably made a complete
hash of it, but apparently rabbi kahane said something like, the
holocaust was a punishment for not going to israel. Somebody
responded, - are you saying it was a punishment ? He said "Was it a
blessing?"
From a non zionist I heard something very sick.. directly from him.
He said they/we wanted national socialism (zionism), so G-d gave them/
us national socialism. punishing them/us mida knegged mida, measure
for measure.
So, rabbi kahane might have seen it as painful birthpangs, or divine
anger, for not going. If the people had listened to jabotinsky (or
rabbi teichtal), they would have been saved.
<snip>
>The fact that one can ask, and indeed any sane person MUST ask, "Where
> was G-d in the Holocaust?" shows that Rav Kook's expectation of gradual
> revelation wasn't born out. Revelation answers, not asks.
>
The idea that we cannot provide answers, has many psychological
reasons..
Political correctness, not wanting to be unpopular,
Nobody wants to tell holocaust survivors or people that lived through
it, that perhaps it was a punishment.. Even telling that to jews born
later, is very unpopular.
(did the L rebbe have this approach?) I think the lubavitcher rebbe
made this idea that we cannot answer it more popular. Even -he- the
big frummer, the frummer of frummers who everybody knows, even he
says we can't answer it. .
The fact is though, we see from the tenach that G-d is tyrannical. Or
rather, he behaves in a way that were a human to do what he did we
would consider him to be a tyrant, and a rather extravagant one.
And even then, turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt was below the
belt. (or rather we would consider it below the belt if a human had
done it)
> The presence of the greatest tragedy (in sheer human lives) in the history
> of the exile makes it impossible to say that redemption started dawning
> beforehand. The Holocaust was a period of hesteir Panim, G-d hiding His
> "Face" from us, darkness, not revelation and an increase of light.
>
> > I suppose rabbi avraham kook's son, rabbi tzvi yehuda kook continued
> > that belief, and He died in 1982.
>
> Not really. In RZYK's day, the dawn was deemed to begin in 1948. This
> avoids the problem with RAYK's belief that it began with the yishuv.
>
if suffering is a problem, then you then have the problem of suicide
bombings and constant attacks. Many jews died in 1948, and in the 6
day war- 1967.
I don't know many. But more than in the WTC perhaps
> Which is why those poor saps in Gush Katif were told by their rabbis
> that "zeh lo yihyeh, zeh lo yiqreh" (it won't be, it won't happen;
> I'm quoting a song written shortly before the expulsion) that they will
> be kicked out of Azza. After all, once the sun starts rising, it is a
> steady progression forward.
>
> Which is why a friend of mine once quipped that R' Zvi Yehudah Kook's
> real yahrzeit is the 10th of Av, 5765. No Religious Zionist today can
> believe his philosophy without some adaptation or adulteration. It was
> disproven by historical events.
>
the gaza disengagement, that israel's secular govt were going to
have on tisha b'av..
I am not sure the importance of saving "the beginning of redemption
has started".. Rabbi Kahane said we are still in exile.. Even though
he may have said the beginning of the redemption had arrived..
He could see how the events unfolding could lead to the redemption.
And unless there is a terrible tragedy, i.e. as long as we don't have
"another exile"(or rather, another bout of divine wrath throwing us
out), then moshiach will come after the state of israel was declared,
and with jews in power in israel and millions of jews in israel.
As the redemption(moshiach,temple) draws nearer, it is reasonable to
suspect that these events taking place now, are steps towards it.
.
Micha Berger
>> But it's not. It's da'as -- they're seeking rabbinic advice because of
>> how all those years of Torah study changed the way the person thinks.
> doesn't Daas mean knowledge? if not,
> what is the definition of chochma bina and daas ?
Depends who you ask.
I'm blogging on it soon. But here's a general idea, consistent with the
Tanya and R' SR Hirsch.
They differ on chokhmah. The Tanya has it as the initial insight. It's
the product of inspiration, and thus a gift from G-d. Which is why it's
the first of the 10 sefiros.
Binah is reasoning.
Da'as is knowledge. But in contrast to zikaron, memory. Da'as is knowledge
that impacts further thought.
Thus, the modern idiom "daas Torah" is consistent with the individual
words -- it's the knowledge of Torah that is shaping how the rabbi in
question further thinks.
It is interesting that women, of whom the Talmud writes "they were given
extra binah", are also described as having "light da'as". The implication
may be a straightforward cognitive difference. Women's thought tends to be
more constructive and creative because it is less likely to get harnessed
into the official proper normative way of thinking about the field.
...
>> ??? The Holocaust wasn't a major setback on the road to redemption?
> you saying it is a road to redemption suggests that you agree with the
> idea that the redemption started with jews going to israel in say the
> 1880s, first wave of aliyah (first wave according to joan
> peters ;-) )..
Earlier than that. The students of the Vilna Gaon. But in any case,
it's not what I agree to, I'm describing what R AY Kook believed. If he
believed he was already within the process fo redemption, then one would
have to conclude, were it not absurd, we were already midredemption when
the Holocaust occured. Not that the Holocaust was somehow a necessary
step to get to redemption.
> I didn't hear it, and the person telling me probably made a complete
> hash of it, but apparently rabbi kahane said something like, the
> holocaust was a punishment for not going to israel. Somebody
> responded, - are you saying it was a punishment ? He said "Was it a
> blessing?"
The only possible response was that of Aaron when he lost two of his
sons. Vayidom Aharon -- and Aharon was silent.
Why do humans have the hubris to think they have to have an answer for
everything? Perhaps the role of religion is more often to help you
properly frame your questions.
...
>> Not really. In RZYK's day, the dawn was deemed to begin in 1948. This
>> avoids the problem with RAYK's belief that it began with the yishuv.
> if suffering is a problem, then you then have the problem of suicide
> bombings and constant attacks. Many jews died in 1948, and in the 6
> day war- 1967.
> I don't know many. But more than in the WTC perhaps
I fail to see how generalizing the question to that of asking why is
there suffering helps answer my question on Rav Kook.
According to him, this was mid-redemption. The light was dawning. This
was it -- a steady dawning until the lion lays down with the lamb, the
swords are turned into ploughshares, all of humanity comes together in
a single union to do G-d's will, etc...
None of which describes the Holocaust.
>> Which is why those poor saps in Gush Katif were told by their rabbis
>> that "zeh lo yihyeh, zeh lo yiqreh" (it won't be, it won't happen;
>> I'm quoting a song written shortly before the expulsion) that they will
>> be kicked out of Azza. After all, once the sun starts rising, it is a
>> steady progression forward.
>> Which is why a friend of mine once quipped that R' Zvi Yehudah Kook's
>> real yahrzeit is the 10th of Av, 5765. No Religious Zionist today can
>> believe his philosophy without some adaptation or adulteration. It was
>> disproven by historical events.
> the gaza disengagement, that israel's secular govt were going to
> have on tisha b'av..
Again, a tangent. How G-d got it done doesn't change the fact that He
let the borders shrink. Against R'ZY Kook's beliefs about a post'48
redemption.
> I am not sure the importance of saving "the beginning of redemption
> has started".. Rabbi Kahane said we are still in exile.. Even though
> he may have said the beginning of the redemption had arrived..
> He could see how the events unfolding could lead to the redemption.
Of course, those of the Rabbis Kook aren't the only models for Religious
Zionism. The non-messianic ones, such as those of R' Reines (who founded
Mizrachi) or R' JB Soloveitchik, haven't.
> And unless there is a terrible tragedy, i.e. as long as we don't have
> "another exile"(or rather, another bout of divine wrath throwing us
> out), then moshiach will come after the state of israel was declared,
> and with jews in power in israel and millions of jews in israel.
> As the redemption(moshiach,temple) draws nearer, it is reasonable to
> suspect that these events taking place now, are steps towards it.
I am only named after two prophets -- Micha Shmuel. I don't claim to be
one. I therefore do not base my life's philosophy on conjectures about
the future.
--
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> But it's not. It's da'as -- they're seeking rabbinic advice because of
> >> how all those years of Torah study changed the way the person thinks.
> > doesn't Daas mean knowledge? if not,
> > what is the definition of chochma bina and daas ?
>
> Depends who you ask.
>
> I'm blogging on it soon. But here's a general idea, consistent with the
> Tanya and R' SR Hirsch.
>
> They differ on chokhmah. The Tanya has it as the initial insight. It's
> the product of inspiration, and thus a gift from G-d. Which is why it's
> the first of the 10 sefiros.
>
> Binah is reasoning.
>
> Da'as is knowledge. But in contrast to zikaron, memory. Da'as is knowledge
> that impacts further thought.
>
> Thus, the modern idiom "daas Torah" is consistent with the individual
> words -- it's the knowledge of Torah that is shaping how the rabbi in
> question further thinks.
>
> It is interesting that women, of whom the Talmud writes "they were given
> extra binah", are also described as having "light da'as". The implication
> may be a straightforward cognitive difference. Women's thought tends to be
> more constructive and creative because it is less likely to get harnessed
> into the official proper normative way of thinking about the field.
>
interesting.. I won't comment on womens' thought though, women here
are alright.
> ...
>
> >> ??? The Holocaust wasn't a major setback on the road to redemption?
> > you saying it is a road to redemption suggests that you agree with the
> > idea that the redemption started with jews going to israel in say the
> > 1880s, first wave of aliyah (first wave according to joan
> > peters ;-) )..
>
> Earlier than that. The students of the Vilna Gaon. But in any case,
> it's not what I agree to, I'm describing what R AY Kook believed. If he
> believed he was already within the process fo redemption, then one would
> have to conclude, were it not absurd, we were already midredemption when
> the Holocaust occured. Not that the Holocaust was somehow a necessary
> step to get to redemption.
>
i'm not that familiar with rav kook. But if you had just meant the
argument that the beginning of the redemption had begun, then the
holocaust doesn't necessarily break the theory.
If you mean as you described rav kook as describing, that it is a
dawn, and things can only get better. Then certainly the holocaust
ruins his theory.
> > I didn't hear it, and the person telling me probably made a complete
> > hash of it, but apparently rabbi kahane said something like, the
> > holocaust was a punishment for not going to israel. Somebody
> > responded, - are you saying it was a punishment ? He said "Was it a
> > blessing?"
>
> The only possible response was that of Aaron when he lost two of his
> sons. Vayidom Aharon -- and Aharon was silent.
>
The analogy would only hold if he was silent when asked for what sin G-
d killed them..
> Why do humans have the hubris to think they have to have an answer for
> everything? Perhaps the role of religion is more often to help you
> properly frame your questions.
>
asking why G-d punished us , or why G-d hid his face from us, is not
asking for an answer for everything. It's a very pertinent question,
and i'm sure that if G-d punishes us, he wants us to know why.
It's not outrageous to suspect or assume or consider the possibility
that 6 million jews murdered, G-d not protecting us, meant we did
something very wrong.
Asking why it happened is not like asking "why do men have nipples?"
That *would* be expecting religion to have all the answers - and that
question was asked and wered by some rabbi.
> ...
>
> >> Not really. In RZYK's day, the dawn was deemed to begin in 1948. This
> >> avoids the problem with RAYK's belief that it began with the yishuv.
> > if suffering is a problem, then you then have the problem of suicide
> > bombings and constant attacks. Many jews died in 1948, and in the 6
> > day war- 1967.
> > I don't know many. But more than in the WTC perhaps
>
> I fail to see how generalizing the question to that of asking why is
> there suffering helps answer my question on Rav Kook.
>
I wasn't generalising it to why there is suffering.
you suggested that major suffering -after- the dawn of redemption ,
breaks a rav kook theory that we have started the dawn of redemption..
You said shifting the date to 1948 solves it by putting it after the
holocaust.
I said it doesn't 'cos many jews died, or were killed rather, in
1967, and many jews have died in terrorism.
> According to him, this was mid-redemption. The light was dawning. This
> was it -- a steady dawning until the lion lays down with the lamb, the
> swords are turned into ploughshares, all of humanity comes together in
> a single union to do G-d's will, etc...
>
> None of which describes the Holocaust.
>
I agree
But not everybody that says we are in times that mark the beginning of
the redemption, would say that it is all positive from here.
> >> Which is why those poor saps in Gush Katif were told by their rabbis
> >> that "zeh lo yihyeh, zeh lo yiqreh" (it won't be, it won't happen;
> >> I'm quoting a song written shortly before the expulsion) that they will
> >> be kicked out of Azza. After all, once the sun starts rising, it is a
> >> steady progression forward.
interesting..
another related point though, which was mentioned by chaim ben pesach
in a video contrasting rav kook and rav kahane..
was that some rabbis, like shlomo aviner, during the disengagement,
told them not to protest.
Because they are mamlachtim, always loyal to the state.
Rav Kook just couldn't see the state as capable of evil.. According to
CBP, even when they blasted yemenite children with radiation to "cure
ringworm", he didn't protest.
<snip>
> > I am not sure the importance of saving "the beginning of redemption
> > has started".. Rabbi Kahane said we are still in exile.. Even though
> > he may have said the beginning of the redemption had arrived..
> > He could see how the events unfolding could lead to the redemption.
>
> Of course, those of the Rabbis Kook aren't the only models for Religious
> Zionism. The non-messianic ones, such as those of R' Reines (who founded
> Mizrachi) or R' JB Soloveitchik, haven't.
>
> > And unless there is a terrible tragedy, i.e. as long as we don't have
> > "another exile"(or rather, another bout of divine wrath throwing us
> > out), then moshiach will come after the state of israel was declared,
> > and with jews in power in israel and millions of jews in israel.
> > As the redemption(moshiach,temple) draws nearer, it is reasonable to
> > suspect that these events taking place now, are steps towards it.
>
> I am only named after two prophets -- Micha Shmuel. I don't claim to be
> one. I therefore do not base my life's philosophy on conjectures about
> the future.
>
> --
well, I was trying to just use logic..
but I see it can work both ways..
we know that in time, moshiach comes.
And, if there isn't another exile, another holocaust (G-d forbid
another holocaust)
I suppose the creation of israel could be seen as a stepping stone for
moshiach, or an obstacle that G-d never wanted.
It does seem more likely to be a stepping stone though, gives moshiach
less work to do.
I've heard mystical views of jews coming to israel through tunnels in
the ground. That miracle won't be so necessary given the natural
aeroplanes, and law of return available!
Micha Berger
>> It is interesting that women, of whom the Talmud writes "they were given
>> extra binah", are also described as having "light da'as". The implication
>> may be a straightforward cognitive difference. Women's thought tends to be
>> more constructive and creative because it is less likely to get harnessed
>> into the official proper normative way of thinking about the field.
> interesting.. I won't comment on womens' thought though, women here
> are alright.
It's not "alright" vs inferior. It's simply saying they're different.
I'm not even sure my own experience provides evidence of that
distinction. I just took the sources as I understood them, and ran
with it.
...
> If you mean as you described rav kook as describing, that it is a
> dawn, and things can only get better. Then certainly the holocaust
> ruins his theory.
That's how I understand him. More significantly, that's how Rav Amital
understood him. Rav Amital is one of the heads of Yeshivat Har Etzion,
a yeshivat hesdeir (interleving study with military service) located in
Gush Etzion (east of the Green Line). He is also a survivor.
>> The only possible response was that of Aaron when he lost two of his
>> sons. Vayidom Aharon -- and Aharon was silent.
> The analogy would only hold if he was silent when asked for what sin G-
> d killed them..
Why? Isn't not asking the question enough to imply he didn't expect it
answered?
...
> asking why G-d punished us , or why G-d hid his face from us, is not
> asking for an answer for everything. It's a very pertinent question,
> and i'm sure that if G-d punishes us, he wants us to know why.
You're conflating two very distinct questions:
1- Why did G-d do this?
2- Now that He did do this, what lesson should I take from it?
Jewish study historically centered on halakhah because, as R' JB
Soloveitchik put it, the Jewish question is not "Why?" but "How am I
to respond?"
...
> another related point though, which was mentioned by chaim ben pesach
> in a video contrasting rav kook and rav kahane..
WADR to R' Meir Kahane, there is no comparison from which to contrast.
Rav Kook was a thinker that challenged his students to follow, one of
the deepest Jewish thinkers of the past couple of centuries. R' Meir
Kahane was a bright LOR crossed with a political activist. His thought
was so unsubtle, RMK never mastered the difference between supporting
the Jewish People and pushing their competitors down.
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> The only possible response was that of Aaron when he lost two of his
> >> sons. Vayidom Aharon -- and Aharon was silent.
> > The analogy would only hold if he was silent when asked for what sin G-
> > d killed them..
>
> Why? Isn't not asking the question enough to imply he didn't expect it
> answered?
>
let me rephrase.
The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
You might say it was excessive.. but G-d is.
Why did he kill Lot's wife ? He said.. He told them not to look back,
and she looked back.
> ...
>
> > asking why G-d punished us , or why G-d hid his face from us, is not
> > asking for an answer for everything. It's a very pertinent question,
> > and i'm sure that if G-d punishes us, he wants us to know why.
>
> You're conflating two very distinct questions:
> 1- Why did G-d do this?
> 2- Now that He did do this, what lesson should I take from it?
>
Not -that- distinct if your answer to 1 is "G-d did punished us
because we did x" and your answer to 2 is "don't do x".
no harm in mixing the answers of 1 and 2 into one sentence.
also, regarding the why, I have heard it said by a logical philosopher
rabbi, and I thought of this myself too prior to hearing it. That we
can't know G-d's full reason for any particular mitzva. Only part of
the reason, or some of the reasons. It may be similar regarding G-d
punishing us, and hence we cannot predict accurately whether it will
happen or not for our sins. Punishment is at G-d's discretion.
<snip>
> ...
>
> > another related point though, which was mentioned by chaim ben pesach
> > in a video contrasting rav kook and rav kahane..
>
> WADR to R' Meir Kahane, there is no comparison from which to contrast.
> Rav Kook was a thinker that challenged his students to follow, one of
> the deepest Jewish thinkers of the past couple of centuries. R' Meir
> Kahane was a bright LOR crossed with a political activist. His thought
> was so unsubtle, RMK never mastered the difference between supporting
> the Jewish People and pushing their competitors down.
>
<snip>
He could not be a halachic expert because his priorities were
different, they were to save the jewish people from another
holocaust.
Certainly after his 15+ years in yeshiva, from before becoming a rabbi
and after, he has enough knowledge to at least be an expert in
hashkafa - at least related to the question of israel. I think he was
also an expert on halacha related to religious zionism.. He must have
fought tooth and nail over it with rabbis at Mir yeshiva!
I think he is more than qualified to differ over hashkafa with any
rabbi.
halachically, (I think he wrote in his commentary, the ibn ezra said
that one should ask the rabbis if something is too difficult for
you).. And he did.. infact, when he was a rav of a shul, he sent a
question to reb moshe feinstein, which is included in iggeret moshe.
And he had a rav, rav mordechai eliyahu.
Rabbi Kahane ztl hyd wrote a 2 volume philosophy of judaism - Ohr
HaRayon, and was writing a commentary on the tenach - peirush
hamaccabee - which was left unfinished when he was murdered. Proper
sefarim. Judaism was where he derived all his ideas from. And he
never deviated from it, and he used his brilliance to find secular
arguments to justify his positions to the wider world.
He also wrote simpler books in english like "why be jewish" to fight
assimilation.
There are stories about how he said things to people that were so
insightful, it touched them deeply, and mekareved many. There was a
story told by chaim ben pesach, I don't remember all the details, and
I may skew the question by making the answer obvious, but the jist of
it was he was giving a talk, and one of the questioners had one arm,
and asked his question in hebrew. He was a soldier who told a story of
how a lubavitch rabbi had told him of the importance of putting on
teffilin, and he argued with him and said G-d should love him even if
he doesn't put on teffilin. (there was another dicussion I don't
recall, that the lubavitch rabbi said to the soldier, about being
willing to make the ultimate sacrifice). Then a grenade hit near them.
It killed the lubavitch rabbi. Another grenade hit, and it blew the
man's arm off, but the arm it blew off, was the arm without the
teffilin.. The man said he had asked many gedolim why did G-d allow a
grenade to hit, kill the rabbi, yet he was spared. And furthermore,
the stranger thing, the bomb blew off the arm that had the
teffilin!!!
Rabbi Kahane answered on his feet, while asking him to confirm certain
parts of the story, "you said the first grenade killed the rabbi?" and
so on.. And he said the conversation you had with rabbi, showed that
the rabbi was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, and he did. Now
the second grenade where he was spared again, but it took off the arm
with the teffilin, was to show you that G-d loves you even when you
don't wear them.
Rabbi Kahane didn't live to see this, but his disciple Chaim Ben
Pesach met a frum man with a whole family, and it was rabbi kahane's
response to him that made him become frum.
He had unbelievable chochma bina and daas, and I think his knowledge ,
emunah and avodas hashem grew with age.. I have seen early pictures
of him at a baseball match - he loved baseball.. But he gave that
interest up. He left his land of comfort- america, which he considered
a tremendously great country. In the 70s he didn't have a beard. His
children are all scholarly, and I think grandchildren too. He is from
a family of rabbis.. going back generations with chief rabbis.
(according to rabbi antelman, his ancestry contains a line of great
rabbis, going back to rabbi yaakov emden). His brother rabbi nachman
is a rabbi whose books are in charedi yeshivot. His sons binyamin ztl
hyd, and rabbi baruch.
He was a gadol in hashkafa(certainly on hashkafa related to israel),
and it's likely that it was only his priorities that made him not a
leading authority on halacha.
Because of his priorities, he did a law degree and perhaps another law
degree (international relations?), and he studied history and
economics.. He was head of the debating society before or after
dershowitz. All to help him in his goal of becoming prime minister of
israel, and convincing jews to make aliyah.
Micha Berger
> The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
> murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
> They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
And whagt was the capital offense in that?
In fact, the rabbis furiously seek explanations of what they did wrong.
I think there are 7 on a page of Miqraos Gedolos (a chumash with the
standard rishonim).
>> You're conflating two very distinct questions:
>> 1- Why did G-d do this?
>> 2- Now that He did do this, what lesson should I take from it?
> Not -that- distinct if your answer to 1 is "G-d did punished us
> because we did x" and your answer to 2 is "don't do x".
> no harm in mixing the answers of 1 and 2 into one sentence.
G-d and "why" are incompatible things to throw into the same sentence.
Our minds our finite. His "Why"s are not.
...
> He could not be a halachic expert because his priorities were
> different, they were to save the jewish people from another
> holocaust.
Those are incompatible priorities? News to me. I don't think he would
have agreed either.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507 "mensch"! -Rabbi Israel Salanter
jamesh...@yahoo.co.uk
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
> > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
> > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>
> And whagt was the capital offense in that?
>
That
What was the capital offence in Lot's wife looking back?
Looking back.
> In fact, the rabbis furiously seek explanations of what they did wrong.
> I think there are 7 on a page of Miqraos Gedolos (a chumash with the
> standard rishonim).
Seeking details from the reason given. Because the chumash is brief.
Likely though that -they- knew exactly what they had/hadn't done,
What we know though, from the plain text, is that they hadn't followed
what G-d wanted regarding it.burning the incense.
Details aside. That's alot more specific than no answer.
>
> >> You're conflating two very distinct questions:
> >> 1- Why did G-d do this?
> >> 2- Now that He did do this, what lesson should I take from it?
> > Not -that- distinct if your answer to 1 is "G-d did punished us
> > because we did x" and your answer to 2 is "don't do x".
> > no harm in mixing the answers of 1 and 2 into one sentence.
>
> G-d and "why" are incompatible things to throw into the same sentence.
> Our minds our finite. His "Why"s are not.
>
the -whole- reason is infinite.. But if we look at some of the reason,
an understanding of it in our minds, then that is finite
it's not like we cannot know anything of why G-d has commanded
anything. As you once said, we have chukim and mishpatim and it's a
scale. Some mitzvot a reason is obvious, others not obvious.. Asking
Why with G-d is not incompatible.. Just if we have a "why", then it's
only part/some of it.
> ...
>
> > He could not be a halachic expert because his priorities were
> > different, they were to save the jewish people from another
> > holocaust.
>
> Those are incompatible priorities? News to me. I don't think he would
> have agreed either.
>
To become an expert in halacha you have to be clever and wise and of a
scholarly mind (he was all of those), and you have to sit studying -
alot. But given the danger that he sensed, he chose to be an activist,
giving lectures, organising the JDL, kach, running for prime minister.
Of course these things took time away from his learning gemara.
Another point about being a halachic expert, being separate from a
mission to save the jews.. Is rabbi shlomo teichtal, wrote paragraphs
along the lines of. - for a long time , on the advice of his
rebbes, he had kept safely within the walls of halachic questions and
not given any thought to questions of jewish destiny, or hashkafa, but
given the danger, he has switched to that -. And as he was writing
the book, his thoughts on these matters were still crystalising in his
mind.
He said himself at a shiur at YU, that he would have loved to study
yeshiva for longer. There was a theme in his books, in one ("they must
go?") he wrote of an event pre 1948, where the arabs attacked a
yeshiva, and one guy was so into his gemara he didn't even realise
they were under attack, and they killed him.
In a letter to his son rabbi baruch kahane - before rabbi baruch was a
rabbi, he wrote to him saying that he(baruch) should be the scholar
that he(meir) could not be.
When his son Rabbi Binyamin Kahane ztl hyd , said they should set up a
yeshiva, (which they did - the son convinced the father), one of the
reasons the father gave, was that if the arabs win, there will be no
yeshiva.
A big hero of rabbi kahane's was jabotinsky. Etched into kahane's mind
was the recent history of the jews that died in the holocaust, who
refused to see the threat that surrounded them.
That is why his priorities were what they were. He was a great
writer, but alot of his writing was done while in prison. He sensed an
immediate danger, and so he didn't just sit and write books or learn
gemara all day. He spent years in kollel, supporting himself. He hoped
that with political power, he could 1- save the jews 2-mekarev them
with his brilliant plain arguments/persuasion, gradually healing a
sick people - so no hugely totalitarian measures.
(though he was not very vocal about point 2, because he wanted people
to vote for him, and that was one rason why he focussed so much on the
arab issue. Because it's easier to convince them of that problem, than
to convince them to keep shabbos! But if he were to get power, then
they'd get the whole kahane. If you're interested in where that point
is mentioned. It is mentioned at a brief point in this very straight
talk - no rhetoric or oratorical prowess- just a class he gave to
kids . He was exhausted, but because they were young, sincere, good
kids, he must have felt it was worthwhile , and didn't give them
shortcut answers! http://www.campsci.com/CAMP/rvideo/meir%20kahana.htm
).
<snip>
Micha Berger
>> In fact, the rabbis furiously seek explanations of what they did wrong.
>> I think there are 7 on a page of Miqraos Gedolos (a chumash with the
>> standard rishonim).
> Seeking details from the reason given. Because the chumash is brief.
Not at all. Here are some of the classically given reasons:
Vayiqra Rabba 20:8
Bar Kappara said in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah ben Eleazar: "Aaron's sons
died because of four things:
1) for drawing near in the holy place,
2) for offering (the incense),
3) for the strange fire, and
4) for not having taken counsel from each other.
"For drawing near", since they entered into the innermost precincts of
the sanctuary [when not the high priest on Yom Kippur -micha]. "For
offering", since they offered a sacrifice which they had not been
commanded to offer. "For the outside fire", they brought in fire from
the kitchen. "And for not having taken counsel from each other" as it
says, "...and each man took his pan" (Lev. 10:1), implying that they
acted each on his own initiative, not taking counsel from one another.
Ibid, on v. 9:
Rabbi Mani of She'ab, Rabbi Joshua of Siknin, and Rabbi Johanan in
the name of Rabbi Levi said: The sons of Aaron died for four things,
in connection with each of which death is mentioned.
1) Because they had drunk wine, and in connection with this death is
mentioned, as it says, Wine and intoxicant, do not drink, you and
your sons with you, when you enter the Tent of Appointment, so that
you do not die?(Leviticus 10:9)
2) Because [while officiating] they lacked the prescribed number of
garments, and in connection with this death is mentioned, as it
says, They are to be on Aharon and on his sons, whenever they come
into the Tent of Appointment or whenever they approach the
slaughter-site to attend at the Holy-Shrine, that they do not bear
iniquity and die. (Exodus 28:43) What did they lack? The robe, in
connection with which death is mentioned, as it says, It is to be
(put) on Aharon, for attending, that its sound may be heard whenever
he comes into the Holy-Shrine before the presence of YHWH, and
whenever he goes out, so that he does not die.(Ibid:35)
3) Because they entered the Sanctuary without washing hands and
feet; for it says, "they are to wash their hands and their feet, so
that they do not die. (Exodus 30:21), and it also says, When they
come into the Tent of Appointment they are to wash with water so
that they do not die, (ib. 20).
4) Because they had no children, and in connection with this death
is mentioned. Thus it is written, "Now Nadav and Avihu died before
the presence of YHWH, in the Wilderness of Sinai; sons they did not
have." (Num. 3:4)
Notice that this last one wasn't even about an act they were doing on
that day!
Toras Kohanim "Acharei Mos" 16:1 (similarly in Sheimini 17):
And it was already that Moshe and Aharon walked on a path and Nadav
and Avihu walked behind them and all of Israel after them. Said
Nadav to Avihu: when will these two old men die and I and you will
lead the generation (Sanhedrin 52a)".
Why all this rabbinic speculation if the verse seems open and chut?
Because the tenses don't work. Here's the text (Vayiqra 10:1-3):
And Nadav and Avihu, sons of Aharon, each one of them took his censor,
and put fire on it, and offered strange fire before Hashem, which
He did not command them. And a fire went out from before Hashem,
and devoured them, and they died before the L-rd. Then Moshe said
to Aharon, This is what Hashem had already said, saying "I will be
sanctified in them that come nigh unto me, and before all the people
I will be glorified." And Aharon was silent.
That "had already said" was "diber". The only verb in the story written
in past perfect, rather than the "reversing vav", the Torah's usual past
imperfect. (In both cases, "past" is implied, but you get the point.)
IOW, the verse says why they died then and how they did. However, Moses
tells Aharon that he had been already told before then that G-d had
judged them a holy but deserving of death.
>> G-d and "why" are incompatible things to throw into the same sentence.
>> Our minds our finite. His "Why"s are not.
> the -whole- reason is infinite.. But if we look at some of the reason,
> an understanding of it in our minds, then that is finite
And an infintesimal fraction of the whole picture.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Israel Salanter
yaco...@aol.com
> jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
> > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
> > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>
> And whagt was the capital offense in that?
????
Aboda Zara.
The very name comes from this incident! Esh zara.
Hoo boy.
> In fact, the rabbis furiously seek explanations of what they did wrong.
> I think there are 7 on a page of Miqraos Gedolos (a chumash with the
> standard rishonim).
The fact that some "standard rishonim" forgot to read th eKuzari and
the dozens of other earlier places which spell this out explicitly is
a comment on these rishonim. Not on the text.
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
Jacko
meir b.
Your prejudices are apparently causing you to jump to unwarranted
conclusions. Micha didn't say that the *explanations* were given by
Rishonim; he mentioned the Rishonim as descriptive of the edition of
the Chumash he was citing.
The various explanations given for the sin of Datan and Aviram
are all quotations from Talmudic sages; the sources quoted are Vayikra
Rabba and Torat Kohanum. Rest assured that their knowledge of the
text exceeds even yours.
It is advisable, when jumping to conclusions, to look before you
leap.
Meir
meir b.
>
> > jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
> > > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
> > > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>
> > And whagt was the capital offense in that?
>
> ????
>
> Aboda Zara.
>
> The very name comes from this incident! Esh zara.
>
> Hoo boy.
Hoo boy, indeed. Avoda zara is used exclusively for the worship
of another entity. It is never used, to the best of my (admittedly
limited) knowledge, for the worship of Hashem by improper means. And
while the former is indeed a capital offense, where do we find that
the latter is?
Meir
meir b.
> The various explanations given for the sin of Datan and Aviram
> are all quotations from Talmudic sages; the sources quoted are Vayikra
> Rabba and Torat Kohanum. Rest assured that their knowledge of the
> text exceeds even yours.
>
> It is advisable, when jumping to conclusions, to look before you
> leap.
That should, of course, have read "the sin of Nadav and Avihu."
Meir
Herman Rubin
meir b. <mei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 2:01=A0pm, yacova...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jun 23, 7:28=A0pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>> > jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
>> > > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
>> > > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>> > And whagt was the capital offense in that?
>> ????
>> Aboda Zara.
>> The very name comes from this incident! =A0Esh zara.
No, the meaning of the terms is the usual. In ancient times,
it was the legend in all religions that only the sanctified
priests could approach their altars without retribution from
the appropriate gods. This is an ancient belief, ensconced
through oral transmission.
The things that you're li'ble
to read in the Bible;
They ain't necessarily so.
>> Hoo boy.
>> > In fact, the rabbis furiously seek explanations of what they did wrong.
>> > I think there are 7 on a page of Miqraos Gedolos (a chumash with the
>> > standard rishonim).
>> The fact that some "standard rishonim" forgot to read th eKuzari and
>> the dozens of other earlier places which spell this out explicitly is
>> a comment on these rishonim. =A0Not on the text.
> Your prejudices are apparently causing you to jump to unwarranted
>conclusions. Micha didn't say that the *explanations* were given by
>Rishonim; he mentioned the Rishonim as descriptive of the edition of
>the Chumash he was citing.
> The various explanations given for the sin of Datan and Aviram
>are all quotations from Talmudic sages; the sources quoted are Vayikra
>Rabba and Torat Kohanum. Rest assured that their knowledge of the
>text exceeds even yours.
Vayikra Rabba and Torat Kohanum were written by
philosophers convinced that they could deduce what happened
from an inadequate account, and who also believed that
every word of both the Sefer Torah and the Oral Law were
directly from God.
> It is advisable, when jumping to conclusions, to look before you
>leap.
The ancient sages did not heed that injunction.
>Meir
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Micha Berger
> Vayikra Rabba and Torat Kohanum were written by
> philosophers convinced that they could deduce what happened
> from an inadequate account, and who also believed that
> every word of both the Sefer Torah and the Oral Law were
> directly from God.
Philosophers? They werre written by keepers of a tradition who held more
of the account than archeologists and historians can recreate.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Yisroel Markov
But the quotes Micha brought later were from the Midrash Rabba and the
Sifra.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Yisroel Markov
Well, there's Korah and his followers...
In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
idolatry."
The paper can be found at
http://faur.derushah.com/downloads/essays/The%20Biblical%20Idea%20of%20Idolatry.pdf
Micha Berger
> In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> idolatry."
And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
But that's not worship of G-d with the wrong ritual, that's worship of
a entity He created.
What we were discussing was "uvechukoseihem lo seileikhu" (and in their
ways, do not go - Vayiqra 18:3, cf Rashi Shabbos 67a) or "lo sa'aseh
kema'aseihem" (Shemos 23:24, see Ramban ad loc, Rashi Chullin 77a).
I am not sure whether these prohibitions are considered a kind of avodah
zarah or are unrelated prohibitions. I think I should be able to figure
it out from AZ 11a, but I've gone through the gemara a couple of times
and can't reach a conclusion.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter
meir b.
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:44:14 +0000 (UTC), "meir b."
> <meir...@hotmail.com> said:
> >On Jun 24, 2:01 pm, yacova...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Jun 23, 7:28 pm, mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>
> >> > jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
> >> > > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
> >> > > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>
> >> > And whagt was the capital offense in that?
>
> >> ????
>
> >> Aboda Zara.
>
> >> The very name comes from this incident! Esh zara.
>
> >> Hoo boy.
>
> > Hoo boy, indeed. Avoda zara is used exclusively for the worship
> >of another entity. It is never used, to the best of my (admittedly
> >limited) knowledge, for the worship of Hashem by improper means. And
> >while the former is indeed a capital offense, where do we find that
> >the latter is?
>
> Well, there's Korah and his followers...
Not comparable. Korach was killed because of his rebellion, not
because of any offering he made. Indeed, it is not stated in the Torah
that he _did_ make an offering; it is the two hundred fifty who are
called the "makrivei haketoret." (Bemidbar 16:35). As for them, since
they were not kohanim, they fall into the category of "hazar hakarev
yumat." It is indeed a capital offense, albeit by heavenly act, not
that of a bet din. They, not their offerings, were zarim. Nadav and
Avihu, on the other hand, were kohanim. They were permitted to
perform the avodah. They did so improperly, bringing eish zara; but
where is it stated that such is punishable by mita biydei shamayim?
> In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> idolatry."
What is the relevance of this citation to our topic? For that
matter, why would anyone think that avoda zara must involve the cult
of images? The English word "idolatry" bespeaks idols, but it is a
most inadequate translation of the term "avoda zara." The Hebrew term
means "alien worship;" that is, worship of any entity other than
Hashem, which was the point of my original post -- that there is no
connection between an alien offering to the true G-d and any worship
of an alien entity.
And what is the point, or the novelty, in stating that Michael's
existence was not in dispute, as though we might think that therefore
worshipping him is not avoda zara? The sun's existence is likewise
not in dispute, yet the Torah itself tells us that its worship is
avoda zara. Faur is breaking no new ground in making his points; in
the words of the Talmud, "zil kerei bei rav hu."
Meir
Meir
> The paper can be found athttp://faur.derushah.com/downloads/essays/The%20Biblical%20Idea%20of%...
yaco...@aol.com
> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> idolatry."
Moreover, "aboda shehi zara". "zara" a feminine adjective modifies
"aboda". It is not "abodath hazzar" or "abodath ha'aher" which would
refer to an alien DEITY.
It is an unprescribed worship, even of God. In Halevi's terminology
"Ijtihad." Man made ritual not sanctioned by the Law.
Thus " worship of any entity other than Hashem" is an imprecise and
wanting translation.
Aboda zara refers to a foreign WORSHIP, even if directed to God (as in
a kohen who serves wihtout the proper 4 vestemets, or an Israelite who
offers a qorban by himself), or to an intermediary between man and
God, such as Micha'el, or such as Yeshu, or a Rebbe, or what have you.
It is unfortunate that people here misread Faur and then proclaim he
has said nothing of value.
If we force a 3D object into 2D and then complain that it seems "flat"
and"lacking depth", whose problem is it? The object's? Or the man
who insists on misperceiving it as only having two dimensions?
If worship is all created by man (i.e., not that created by the Law),
then it really matters not whether that man says it is directed to God
or to any other being. To such a man, "God" is just as much a
projection of his imagination as Zeus, Yeshu, Shiva or Nuestra Senhora
de Guadalupe. The god if Israel is not a mental anthropomorphic
projection.
The Tora is rather profound here. Too bad it is mostly missed.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
> Yisroel Markov <ey.mar...@munginame.com> wrote:
> > In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
> > 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> > From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> > necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> > benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> > existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> > idolatry."
>
> And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
> But that's not worship of G-d with the wrong ritual, that's worship of
> a entity He created.
But that is not correct. "Elle elohekha Yisra'el" is not a "kerub"
which means exactly what in the mindset of bene Yisra'el in mid Tammuz
2448??
I fail to see the need to ignore the text for exotic theories. Did a
"kerub" take Israel out of Egypt??
The Midrash Tanhuma comments on what the Golden Calf was all about, in
relation to the Gold Heifer, see perashath hukkath.
The worship was of God himself, seen as Horus.
Text. Text. Text. It all starts with the text.
> Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning,
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
> > Aboda Zara.
>
> > The very name comes from this incident! Esh zara.
>
> > Hoo boy.
>
> Hoo boy, indeed. Avoda zara is used exclusively for the worship
> of another entity.
Wrong. Absolutely wrong.
You find the sources.
> It is never used, to the best of my (admittedly
> limited) knowledge, for the worship of Hashem by improper means.
Indeed it is. So if your knowledge is limited, why "jump to a
conclusion" before looking? Why is that good advice to me, but you do
not practice it yourself?
Can we cut thorugh the bullcrap and be honest here?
I seriously want to know how I am supposed to deal with this double
standard.
Are you simply venting at me, so I should ignore all of this?
Do you really care if Aboda Zara means what I say, or is anything I
say at variance with your people simply the subject for ridicule?
Aboda Zara is NOT "idolatry." That is "pesiluth."
"Aboda shehi zara" MEANS SOMETHING in Hebrew.
Zara modifies "aboda," not the object of worship. Are you even
interested in looking at the words carefully, or am I wasting my time?
Does grammar mean anything?
> while the former is indeed a capital offense, where do we find that
> the latter is?
The plethora of bases for a kohen deserving death for improper
worship, mehusar begadim, etc.. The bases for a non-kohen deserving
death for performing a priestly aboda.
Jacko
yaco...@aol.com
> >> Aboda Zara.
> >> The very name comes from this incident! =A0Esh zara.
>
> No, the meaning of the terms is the usual.
What does "the usual" mean?
I happen to know hebrew. Aboda means service or worship. Zara is a
feminine adjective for "strange" "foreign"..
"Foreign worship."
Among educated Israelites THAT is "the usual" rendering of the term.
> In ancient times,
> it was the legend in all religions that only the sanctified
> priests could approach their altars without retribution from
> the appropriate gods.
Not Israelites. They sacrificed on private altars, and on Pesah
"every Israelite acted as priest."
The sisith are a priestly adornment showing EVERY Israelite is a
priest.
> This is an ancient belief, ensconced
> through oral transmission.
Among pagans. Judaism relivied man from the burdens of pagan
thinking.
THAT is the "usual" take on the Tora by my people.
> The things that you're li'ble
> to read in the Bible;
> They ain't necessarily so.
The things Herman Rubin writes aint necessarily so either.
Can you tell us what that ditty comes to offer a non-teenage mind?
> Vayikra Rabba and Torat Kohanum were written by
> philosophers convinced that they could deduce what happened
> from an inadequate account, and who also believed that
> every word of both the Sefer Torah and the Oral Law were
> directly from God.
Not at all what I get out of it. i read thes ein the original
language and culture. Sorry, but I will mnot drop my brain at the
door to accept your oedipal characterizations.
It's okay. Eat as many cheeseburgers as you like! You do not need to
symbolically disenfranchise and castrate all of Rabbinics to do so.
Ego te disolvo.
Jacko
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>> > jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk <jameshanle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> > > The analogy is irrelevant because we know why Aharon's sons were
>>> > > murdered. And I imagine aharon did too.
>>> > > They offered a strange fire to the L-rd
>>>
>>> > And whagt was the capital offense in that?
>>>
>>> ????
>>>
>>>
>>> The very name comes from this incident! Esh zara.
>>>
>>> Hoo boy.
>>
>> Hoo boy, indeed. Avoda zara is used exclusively for the worship
>>limited) knowledge, for the worship of Hashem by improper means. And
>>while the former is indeed a capital offense, where do we find that
>>the latter is?
>
>
> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> idolatry."
>
How does that refute what Meir wrote? If someone worships the angel
Michael, he is worshiping another entity.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
yaco...@aol.com
>
> How does that refute what Meir wrote? If someone worships the angel
> Michael, he is worshiping another entity.
>
> Moshe Schorr
How does another entity fit the words "aboda zara"? Zara modifies
"aboda." Zara is NOT a modifier of the object of worship, rather of
the worship itself, regardless of whom is worshipped.
Once again, does grammar mean anything at all to you folks?
Jacko
Yisroel Markov
Berger) said:
>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@munginame.com> wrote:
>> In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
>> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
>> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
>> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
>> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
>> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
>> idolatry."
>
>And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
Contra the tradition that keruvim looked like children? (Sorry, but I
don't remember that argument.)
>But that's not worship of G-d with the wrong ritual, that's worship of
>a entity He created.
Contra popular statements that the Jews' intent was to worship God?
>What we were discussing was "uvechukoseihem lo seileikhu" (and in their
>ways, do not go - Vayiqra 18:3, cf Rashi Shabbos 67a) or "lo sa'aseh
>kema'aseihem" (Shemos 23:24, see Ramban ad loc, Rashi Chullin 77a).
>I am not sure whether these prohibitions are considered a kind of avodah
>zarah or are unrelated prohibitions. I think I should be able to figure
>it out from AZ 11a, but I've gone through the gemara a couple of times
>and can't reach a conclusion.
It would seem that these should fall under the rubric. (I need to at
least look at that gemara.)
Yisroel Markov
The Mishne Tora lists in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 19:2 a subset of those who
are "liable to death at the hands of Heaven," namely those where there
is an expressly action prohibited action. The list includes several
applications to kohanim.
Now you may say that none of the offenses mentioned include
unauthorized avoda. If so, then please refer to Hilkhot Bi'at
ha-Mikdash 2:2(3), which states in relevant part: "How many times does
he [Kohen Gadol] enters there [the Holy of Holies] on Yom Kippur?
Four, as explained in its places; and if he enters a fifth time, he is
liable to mita bidei shamayim." That would seem to cover entering for
any purpose, including with blood for sprinkling or incense for
burning, or whatever.
>> In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
>> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
>> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
>> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
>> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
>> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
>> idolatry."
>
> What is the relevance of this citation to our topic? For that
>matter, why would anyone think that avoda zara must involve the cult
>of images? The English word "idolatry" bespeaks idols, but it is a
>most inadequate translation of the term "avoda zara." The Hebrew term
>means "alien worship;" that is, worship of any entity other than
>Hashem, which was the point of my original post -- that there is no
>connection between an alien offering to the true G-d and any worship
>of an alien entity.
Since you haven't killfiled Jacko, I refer you to his post explaining
the grammatical difference between "avoda zara" and "avodat zar."
> And what is the point, or the novelty, in stating that Michael's
>existence was not in dispute, as though we might think that therefore
>worshipping him is not avoda zara? The sun's existence is likewise
>not in dispute, yet the Torah itself tells us that its worship is
>avoda zara. Faur is breaking no new ground in making his points; in
>the words of the Talmud, "zil kerei bei rav hu."
I have quoted the conclusion of the paper; its proper understanding
would require reading the argument and the evidence adduced. (It's not
that long - just 15 pages of large-font text).
It is tempting to restrict the term "avoda zara" to what we commonly
refer to as idolatry, given the subject matter of the eponymous
Mishna/Gemara. However, IIRC, the Talmud throughout refers to
idolaters as "avdei kohavim u-mazalot," and never "avdei avoda zara."
I have seen that latter term used, too, but only in much later
sources.
meir b.
Here, too, the liability is not for improper avodah, but for
unauthorized entry into the kodesh hakodashim. He is liable even if
he does no avodah whatsoever.
> >> In "The Biblical Idea of Idolatry" R' Faur refers to Tosefta Hullin
> >> 2:24, "where worship of angel Michael is declared to be abodah zarah.
> >> From this the following two points emerge: a) Idolatry does not
> >> necessarily involve the cult of images; b) Michael was considered a
> >> benevolent angel who interceded with God on behalf of Israel. His
> >> existence was not in dispute, yet worship of him was considered
> >> idolatry."
>
> > What is the relevance of this citation to our topic? For that
> >matter, why would anyone think that avoda zara must involve the cult
> >of images? The English word "idolatry" bespeaks idols, but it is a
> >most inadequate translation of the term "avoda zara." The Hebrew term
> >means "alien worship;" that is, worship of any entity other than
> >Hashem, which was the point of my original post -- that there is no
> >connection between an alien offering to the true G-d and any worship
> >of an alien entity.
>
> Since you haven't killfiled Jacko, I refer you to his post explaining
> the grammatical difference between "avoda zara" and "avodat zar."
I don't know how to killfile, nor would I do it if I did know.
However, while Jacko's grammar is impeccable -- certainly the literal
meaning of "avoda zara" is "strange service" -- the halachic meaning
of the term goes far beyond the literal. To take one of myriads of
examples, see Rambam, Hilchot Avoda Zara 3:9, where he writes, "He who
makes an avoda zara for himself, even if he did not make it with his
own hands, and even if he did not worship it (v'af al pi shelo avadah,
in his words), he gets lashes, for it is written 'lo ta'aseh lecha kol
pesel' " Obviously, it is the object of worship, and not the worship
itself, that is referred to here as "avoda zara."
And I reiterate that we find no use of the term "avoda zara" in
reference to improper worship of Hashem, so that the term is unrelated
to the eish zara of Nadav and Avihu. Also, we find no example of
capital punishment, whether by human imposition or biydei shamayim,
for offering something improper to Hashem. There are many instances
where mitah biydei shamayim is the punishment for improprieties of
service, but in all such cases it is the person who is improper (a non-
kohein, or a kohein not wearing the proper garments, who is considered
a non-kohein for purposes of avodah -- "bizman she'ein bigdeihen
aleihen, ein kehunatan aleihen") or his personal state is improper
(one having partaken of intoxicating beverages or not having washed
hands and feet). We never find the death penalty for a fault in
_what_ is being offered -- which was my point.
> > And what is the point, or the novelty, in stating that Michael's
> >existence was not in dispute, as though we might think that therefore
> >worshipping him is not avoda zara? The sun's existence is likewise
> >not in dispute, yet the Torah itself tells us that its worship is
> >avoda zara. Faur is breaking no new ground in making his points; in
> >the words of the Talmud, "zil kerei bei rav hu."
> I have quoted the conclusion of the paper; its proper understanding
> would require reading the argument and the evidence adduced. (It's not
> that long - just 15 pages of large-font text).
> It is tempting to restrict the term "avoda zara" to what we commonly
> refer to as idolatry, given the subject matter of the eponymous
> Mishna/Gemara. However, IIRC, the Talmud throughout refers to
> idolaters as "avdei kohavim u-mazalot," and never "avdei avoda zara."
> I have seen that latter term used, too, but only in much later
> sources.
I believe that you have it backward. In the Frankel edition of
Rambam's Mishne Torah, at the very beginning of Hilchot Avoda Zara, in
the section of "Shinuyei Nuscha'ot," we find, " 'Hilchot Avoda Zara
v'Chukot Hagoyim' -- thus it is in the manuscripts and in the prints
until the Venice 1574 edition." The term "avodat kochavim umazalot"
is, I believe, a euphemism introduced by censors so that it should not
be seen as applying to Christianity, which after all does not worship
stars and constellations. And incidentally, it's "ovdei," not
"avdei;" "worshippers of," not "slaves of."
Meir
Micha Berger
>>And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
> Contra the tradition that keruvim looked like children? (Sorry, but I
> don't remember that argument.)
The ones on top of the aron did.
However...
From <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/06/angels-and-idols.shtml>:
> In [Ezekiel] 1:10, the angels called chayos (Living Beings) present at
> the Divine Chariot are described as having four faces: that of a man,
> a lion, an ox, and an eagle. However, in 10:15 we're told that a chayah
> is a keruv, in the two visions he them saw identically (10:22) and the
> keruv has the faces of a keruv, a man, a lion and an eagle.
...
> The Chaldeans worshiped a god called Kirub, who was a bull with a human
> face.
...
> The Chaldeans worshiped a god called Kirub, who was a bull with a human
> face.
...
> I would therefore suggest that this middleman god is a single thread
> of pagan thought -- be it Apis, Kirub, the eigel, or bulls at Malkhus
> Yisrael. They are a misunderstanding of the notion of keruvim.
The last paragraph quoted is just a teaser. I will make little sense
without reading the whole blog entry.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
yaco...@aol.com
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
While Ezeqiel lived in babylon, Israel lived in Egypt.
Apis- Kirub- bulls are not a ***calf***. it was not a Golden Bull.
But a Golden Calf.
I am sorry, but theories need to be contextual and make sense.
Jacko
Arthur Kamlet
Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:53 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>Berger) said:
>>And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
>
>Contra the tradition that keruvim looked like children? (Sorry, but I
>don't remember that argument.)
Children? Children brandishing flaming swords? (Gen 3:24)
Scary :^)
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
yaco...@aol.com
> Here, too, the liability is not for improper avodah, but for
> unauthorized entry into the kodesh hakodashim. He is liable even if
> he does no avodah whatsoever.
False dichotomy. Also liable if does the proper service but switches
the order. Why?
Man does not dictate to God, that's why and that is the whole point.
**That** is Ijtihad. Now, either we deal with Yehuda Halevi & Co. or
we do not. What was the sin of the Golden Calf? Besides all the
pilpul and noise, "elle elohekha Yisrael asher he'elukha ... " and
"hag LADONAI mahar" refer explicitly to God. So what was the
problem???
The text is so explicit here. The sin was in needing a physical image
to represent God.
The text says NOTHING about any other deity. The text says they
referred to it as teh God who brought them out of Egypt, and Aharon
says Hag to YHWH tomorrow.
> However, while Jacko's grammar is impeccable -- certainly the literal
> meaning of "avoda zara" is "strange service" -- the halachic meaning
> of the term goes far beyond the literal. To take one of myriads of
> examples, see Rambam, Hilchot Avoda Zara 3:9, where he writes, "He who
> makes an avoda zara for himself, even if he did not make it with his
> own hands, and even if he did not worship it (v'af al pi shelo avadah,
> in his words), he gets lashes, for it is written 'lo ta'aseh lecha kol
> pesel' " Obviously, it is the object of worship, and not the worship
> itself, that is referred to here as "avoda zara."
The term, in this latter rabbinic sense is "borrowed." It refers to
the object of aboda zara, borrowed from the fact that the worship of
such an object is aboda zara. A noun made out of a verbal clause.
Not uncommon, but also no basis to backproject onto the Biblical sense
of the verbal phrase which we all know is a VERB.
I do not deny that a subset of AZ is worshipping an idol; worshipping
the stars; worshipping a dead man (actually all foreign deities that
are not stars or mountains or animals **are** dead men); changing the
order of prescribed worship, as in mishna Kippurim.
But another subset is offering "esh zara." Or propitiating God's
angels (as in Michael), or demons (even if you imagine they are
subject to God also); or sefiroth.
All are aboda zara.
> And I reiterate that we find no use of the term "avoda zara" in
> reference to improper worship of Hashem, so that the term is unrelated
> to the eish zara of Nadav and Avihu.
Circular. "We" understand esh zara to be precisely "aboda zara".
> Also, we find no example of
> capital punishment, whether by human imposition or biydei shamayim,
> for offering something improper to Hashem.
Offering a qorban with a mum knowingly.
> There are many instances
> where mitah biydei shamayim is the punishment for improprieties of
> service, but in all such cases it is the person who is improper (a non-
> kohein, or a kohein not wearing the proper garments, who is considered
> a non-kohein for purposes of avodah -- "bizman she'ein bigdeihen
> aleihen, ein kehunatan aleihen") or his personal state is improper
> (one having partaken of intoxicating beverages or not having washed
> hands and feet). We never find the death penalty for a fault in
> _what_ is being offered -- which was my point.
Mum. Again you select cases to prove your point. Shehute hus -
violation of Debarim 11:13.
> I believe that you have it backward. In the Frankel edition of
> Rambam's Mishne Torah, at the very beginning of Hilchot Avoda Zara, in
> the section of "Shinuyei Nuscha'ot," we find, " 'Hilchot Avoda Zara
> v'Chukot Hagoyim' -- thus it is in the manuscripts and in the prints
> until the Venice 1574 edition."
True.
> The term "avodat kochavim umazalot"
> is, I believe, a euphemism introduced by censors so that it should not
> be seen as applying to Christianity, which after all does not worship
> stars and constellations.
Also true. But as per AZ chapter 1, the first form of AZ **was**
worship of stars amd planets. We still have this in the days of the
week.
The term is Biblical (Debarim 4;19). Even more explicit in Samaritan
Tora.
Jacko
> Meir
Jacko
meir b.
> On Jun 26, 10:03 pm, "meir b." <meir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here, too, the liability is not for improper avodah, but for
> > unauthorized entry into the kodesh hakodashim. He is liable even if
> > he does no avodah whatsoever.
>
> False dichotomy. Also liable if does the proper service but switches
> the order. Why?
>
> Man does not dictate to God, that's why and that is the whole point.
His liability for mita biydei shamayim is still for the
unauthorized entry, not for the improper service. There is no death
penalty for improper order.
> **That** is Ijtihad. Now, either we deal with Yehuda Halevi & Co. or
> we do not. What was the sin of the Golden Calf? Besides all the
> pilpul and noise, "elle elohekha Yisrael asher he'elukha ... " and
> "hag LADONAI mahar" refer explicitly to God. So what was the
> problem???
> The text is so explicit here. The sin was in needing a physical image
> to represent God.
> The text says NOTHING about any other deity. The text says they
> referred to it as teh God who brought them out of Egypt, and Aharon
> says Hag to YHWH tomorrow.
And their penalty was not for any improper offerings that they
made to Hashem. It was not _what_ they offered, but _to what_ -- a
graven image.
> > However, while Jacko's grammar is impeccable -- certainly the literal
> > meaning of "avoda zara" is "strange service" -- the halachic meaning
> > of the term goes far beyond the literal. To take one of myriads of
> > examples, see Rambam, Hilchot Avoda Zara 3:9, where he writes, "He who
> > makes an avoda zara for himself, even if he did not make it with his
> > own hands, and even if he did not worship it (v'af al pi shelo avadah,
> > in his words), he gets lashes, for it is written 'lo ta'aseh lecha kol
> > pesel' " Obviously, it is the object of worship, and not the worship
> > itself, that is referred to here as "avoda zara."
>
> The term, in this latter rabbinic sense is "borrowed." It refers to
> the object of aboda zara, borrowed from the fact that the worship of
> such an object is aboda zara. A noun made out of a verbal clause.
> Not uncommon, but also no basis to backproject onto the Biblical sense
> of the verbal phrase which we all know is a VERB.
And where, pray tell, does the phrase "avoda zara" appear in the
Bible? It doesn't; it's a Talmudic term which, more often than not, is
used as a noun. And there is certainly no indication that the phrase
is any way derived from, or connected to, the eish zara brought by
Nadav and Avihu.
> I do not deny that a subset of AZ is worshipping an idol;
worshipping
> the stars; worshipping a dead man (actually all foreign deities that
> are not stars or mountains or animals **are** dead men); changing the
> order of prescribed worship, as in mishna Kippurim.
Whoa! Where is changing the order of service referred to as
"avoda zara"? Certainly _not_ in the mishna Kippurim. In fact, there
is no penalty mentioned in conjunction of doing something out of order
in and of itself. If, for instance, the kohein gadol applied the
blood of his bull on the golden altar before sprinkling it toward the
parochet, he must repeat it after the parochet sprinkling, but he is
liable to no punishment for what he did out of order. This is
certainly _not_ avoda zara in any sense of the word.
> But another subset is offering "esh zara." Or propitiating God's
> angels (as in Michael), or demons (even if you imagine they are
> subject to God also); or sefiroth.
>
> All are aboda zara.
And all are irrelevant to our discussion, which centers on
offering somehing improper, such as "alien fire," as opposed to
offering to an inappropiate entity.
> > And I reiterate that we find no use of the term "avoda zara" in
> > reference to improper worship of Hashem, so that the term is unrelated
> > to the eish zara of Nadav and Avihu.
>
> Circular. "We" understand esh zara to be precisely "aboda zara".
>
> > Also, we find no example of
> > capital punishment, whether by human imposition or biydei shamayim,
> > for offering something improper to Hashem.
>
> Offering a qorban with a mum knowingly.
And your source for saying that there is capital punishment for
this violation is what? It bears corporal punishment, as listed in
Rambam Sanhedrin 19:4, and is conspicuously absent from the list of
sins punished by mita biydei shamayim, in 19:3.
> > There are many instances
> > where mitah biydei shamayim is the punishment for improprieties of
> > service, but in all such cases it is the person who is improper (a non-
> > kohein, or a kohein not wearing the proper garments, who is considered
> > a non-kohein for purposes of avodah -- "bizman she'ein bigdeihen
> > aleihen, ein kehunatan aleihen") or his personal state is improper
> > (one having partaken of intoxicating beverages or not having washed
> > hands and feet). We never find the death penalty for a fault in
> > _what_ is being offered -- which was my point.
>
> Mum. Again you select cases to prove your point. Shehute hus -
> violation of Debarim 11:13.
I selected no cases, but made a general statement. And the case
you bring (offering a defective animal) is simply incorrect, as above
-- there is no mita for it. Shechutei chutz, offering a korban
outside the azara, is also not an example: the karet is not for
_what_ he offers, but for _where_ he offers it.
> > I believe that you have it backward. In the Frankel edition of
> > Rambam's Mishne Torah, at the very beginning of Hilchot Avoda Zara, in
> > the section of "Shinuyei Nuscha'ot," we find, " 'Hilchot Avoda Zara
> > v'Chukot Hagoyim' -- thus it is in the manuscripts and in the prints
> > until the Venice 1574 edition."
>
> True.
>
> > The term "avodat kochavim umazalot"
> > is, I believe, a euphemism introduced by censors so that it should not
> > be seen as applying to Christianity, which after all does not worship
> > stars and constellations.
>
> Also true. But as per AZ chapter 1, the first form of AZ **was**
> worship of stars amd planets. We still have this in the days of the
> week.
>
> The term is Biblical (Debarim 4;19). Even more explicit in Samaritan
> Tora.
Agreed; but while interesting, irrelevant to the discussion.
Meir
> Jacko
Don Levey
> In article <22a56450de76vku8r...@4ax.com>,
> Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:53 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>>Berger) said:
>>>And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
>>
>>Contra the tradition that keruvim looked like children? (Sorry, but I
>>don't remember that argument.)
>
>
> Children? Children brandishing flaming swords? (Gen 3:24)
>
> Scary :^)
>
I don't think you've met my kids...
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-pubkey.asc
Herman Rubin
In article <g3u04l$hnh$1...@falcon.steinthal.us>,
It is the almost universal belief of scholars, with the
exception of Orthodox Jews and other similar fundamentalists,
that most of Tanakh was compiled around the time of Ezra, and
that he was even the redactor-in-chief. It was compiled from
earlier versions of the various parts, going back to various
times, and these were a mixture of legends and some kind of
oral tradition, and some written materials not too carefully
copied from one scribe to another.
Ezra probably had to choose from differing accounts. The one
most often followed was Jeremiah's, most of which is in some
version of Deuteronomy. Oral traditions abounded, and they were
often essentially worthless, having gone through generations.
Archaeologists and historians cannot recreate what happened in
the past, but they can recreate enough to know that what the
sages produced is wrong. We do not have a time machine, but
we can put some things together. So many details for now.
Micha Berger
>>Philosophers? They werre written by keepers of a tradition who held more
>>of the account than archeologists and historians can recreate.
>
> It is the almost universal belief of scholars, with the
> exception of Orthodox Jews and other similar fundamentalists,
> that most of Tanakh was compiled around the time of Ezra, and
Belief in DH after Welthausen's initial data was discredited is itself
a sort of fundamentalism.
And it's far from universally accepted among people with an emotional
need to debunk (the so called "skeptics", but see the previous paragraph)
that R[edactor] or any of the Rs were Ezra. Nor that the Tanakh was
complete in his day.
> Ezra probably had to choose from differing accounts. The one
> most often followed was Jeremiah's, most of which is in some
> version of Deuteronomy. Oral traditions abounded, and they were
> often essentially worthless, having gone through generations.
D is simple -- it's the early prophetic tradition. Deut was G-d's record
of Moses' final speech. Joshua, Samuel, etc wrote the early prophets. Even
according to O, D was produced by a single school, and different than
the schools of the soferim (Chronicals, Ezra, Nechemiah) or the kings
(Shir haShirim, Koheles, Mishlei, Tehillim), etc...
> Archaeologists and historians cannot recreate what happened in
> the past, but they can recreate enough to know that what the
> sages produced is wrong. We do not have a time machine, but
> we can put some things together. So many details for now.
Not really. Compare biblical archeology findings with the religious
beliefs of their authors. Somehow, the findings always match the
bias. Maximalists find confirmation of the bible; minimalists always find
evidence by which to reject. Places the entire methodology into question,
even WRT evidence that is supposed to support my own beliefs.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Micha Berger
> **That** is Ijtihad. Now, either we deal with Yehuda Halevi & Co. or
> we do not. What was the sin of the Golden Calf? Besides all the
> pilpul and noise, "elle elohekha Yisrael asher he'elukha ... " and
> "hag LADONAI mahar" refer explicitly to God. So what was the
> problem???
> The text is so explicit here. The sin was in needing a physical image
> to represent God.
And yet they were panicing about the absence of "ha'ish Mosheh"... They
needed a conduit figure to replace Moses. Thus, they were making a
holiday for G-d once they had the conduit. The image didn't represtn
G-d, it represented the means of reaching Him.
Or are you again so sure of yourself that you'll speak first and check
chazal after?
Tim Meushaw
> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>Philosophers? They werre written by keepers of a tradition who held more
>>>of the account than archeologists and historians can recreate.
>>
>> It is the almost universal belief of scholars, with the
>> exception of Orthodox Jews and other similar fundamentalists,
>> that most of Tanakh was compiled around the time of Ezra, and
>> that he was even the redactor-in-chief...
>
> Belief in DH after Welthausen's initial data was discredited is itself
> a sort of fundamentalism.
>
> And it's far from universally accepted among people with an emotional
> need to debunk (the so called "skeptics", but see the previous paragraph)
> that R[edactor] or any of the Rs were Ezra. Nor that the Tanakh was
> complete in his day.
The things that you're given,
to read by Welthausen;
They ain't necessarily so.
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Yisroel Markov
Oh. My point was not dependent on offering something or not - just
doing anything unauthorized as a service. Nadav/Avihu's incense was
not an improper offering in and of itself, right?
Otherwise, I find your argument convincing. Additional evidence is
needed to support the other side.
>> > And what is the point, or the novelty, in stating that Michael's
>> >existence was not in dispute, as though we might think that therefore
>> >worshipping him is not avoda zara? The sun's existence is likewise
>> >not in dispute, yet the Torah itself tells us that its worship is
>> >avoda zara. Faur is breaking no new ground in making his points; in
>> >the words of the Talmud, "zil kerei bei rav hu."
>
>> I have quoted the conclusion of the paper; its proper understanding
>> would require reading the argument and the evidence adduced. (It's not
>> that long - just 15 pages of large-font text).
>
>> It is tempting to restrict the term "avoda zara" to what we commonly
>> refer to as idolatry, given the subject matter of the eponymous
>> Mishna/Gemara. However, IIRC, the Talmud throughout refers to
>> idolaters as "avdei kohavim u-mazalot," and never "avdei avoda zara."
>> I have seen that latter term used, too, but only in much later
>> sources.
>
> I believe that you have it backward. In the Frankel edition of
>Rambam's Mishne Torah, at the very beginning of Hilchot Avoda Zara, in
>the section of "Shinuyei Nuscha'ot," we find, " 'Hilchot Avoda Zara
>v'Chukot Hagoyim' -- thus it is in the manuscripts and in the prints
>until the Venice 1574 edition." The term "avodat kochavim umazalot"
>is, I believe, a euphemism introduced by censors so that it should not
>be seen as applying to Christianity, which after all does not worship
>stars and constellations. And incidentally, it's "ovdei," not
>"avdei;" "worshippers of," not "slaves of."
Thank you.
Herman Rubin
Arthur Kamlet <-T...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <22a56450de76vku8r...@4ax.com>,
>Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@iname.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:21:53 +0000 (UTC), mi...@aishdas.org (Micha
>>Berger) said:
>>>And I once argued on scjm that the golden calf was a worship of a keruv.
>>Contra the tradition that keruvim looked like children? (Sorry, but I
>>don't remember that argument.)
>Children? Children brandishing flaming swords? (Gen 3:24)
>Scary :^)
Who said that non-humans which look like children could not
brandish flaming swords?
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>yaco...@aol.com wrote:
>> **That** is Ijtihad. Now, either we deal with Yehuda Halevi & Co. or
>> we do not. What was the sin of the Golden Calf? Besides all the
>> pilpul and noise, "elle elohekha Yisrael asher he'elukha ... " and
>> "hag LADONAI mahar" refer explicitly to God. So what was the
>> problem???
>> The text is so explicit here. The sin was in needing a physical image
>> to represent God.
>And yet they were panicing about the absence of "ha'ish Mosheh"... They
>needed a conduit figure to replace Moses. Thus, they were making a
>holiday for G-d once they had the conduit. The image didn't represtn
>G-d, it represented the means of reaching Him.
This was the initial intent, and the one Aaron presumably
carried out. But the text says that after the golden calf
was built, they started to worship it.
My own take on this is in accord with Friedman. The Kingdom
of Israel had two calves, one in the north and one in the south,
which were treated as the footstools of God. It is easy to
see how it could be then transformed into the story, to aggrandize
Aaron, at the time the other line of priests, the seed of Moses,
was being eliminated from the priesthood.
As a literal story, I cannot believe it. I am not convinced that
my explanation is correct, but it got sneaked in somehow.
>Or are you again so sure of yourself that you'll speak first and check
>chazal after?
You know my opinion on that.