Are we going to have a "one year in beta" anniversary party (to prepare for launch)?

we went into beta on the sixth of iyar (We are going live just a little to late).

@ShmuelBrin would have been pretty awesome if we could gain our "independence" from StackExchange just a day earlier. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Ha'atzmaut)

@هه What independence from stackexchange? Independence from the shackles of beta, perhaps.

@HodofHod The whole statement was made in jest, as I hope all can tell.

@vram why did you change your name?

@HachamGabriel Perhaps I feel like this one is more accurate.

@vram two dots?

@HachamGabriel Don't be such a xenophobe :)

@vram how so?

@HachamGabriel Just because they aren't in your language, doesn't mean they aren't valid letters.

@vram beseder.

@vram interesting statement I heard from HaRav Yaakov Hillel Shelit"a about Sefaradi and Ashkeneazi Yeshivot.

@HachamGabriel is next year a Kiddushin year?

yes, next year.

@vram ping.

He said that the ashkenazi yehsivot today have the original sefaradi learning of harav yom tov algazi zs"l

@HachamGabriel who is "he"?

harav yaakov hillel shelit"a

learntorah.com/lt-shiur-details.aspx?id=4510 somewhere in this shiur

@HachamGabriel R' BH tells us about when he was a student that R Ezra Attia z"l would teach a lot of mahar"sha. reminds me a bit of CC

interesting @vram

@HachamGabriel you are aware that @Vram does not notify me in any way, right?

@DoubleAA same goes for you

@Vram See here: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/15692/…

I heard a story about when he had a hard time with the maharsha he went to sleep and the maharasha came to him in a dream

I thought old names also worked.

@DoubleAA BTW you never got back to me about the Gr"A on sefirat ha'omer

Eze Gra?

@HachamGabriel see comments here

Remind me please @

BTW Hacham Ovadia holds that it is midrabanan (hence the removal of the pasuk from leshem yihud). However, Hacham Bension seems to disagree.

What happened to msh210? hasn't been around in a while

@HachamGabriel The disagreement is older that either of them. It stems from the talmud. Perhaps what you mean to say is that he holds that maran holds that its miderabannan? (In which case I think he would be arguing with the gr"a, but I'm not sure.) Or perhaps he feels confident enough to rule one way because most rishonim say so, as he often plays with numbers in that way.

I meant to say that he holds that it's pashut from maran that it is derabnan bzman hazeh.

Did have BH have a kesher with harav yehuda sadka zs"l?

@HachamGabriel take a look at the gr"a. R' BH is actually (distantly) related to R Tzadka through his uncle's marriage.

@HachamGabriel He learned from him, but I doubt he considers him a rav muvhak for everything. They seem to have very different hashkafot.

@DoubleAA כל האומר דבר בשם אומרו מביא גאולה לעולם שנאמר ותאמר אסתר למלך בשם מרדכי

@DoubleAA I heard that quoted somewhere but I don't remember who said it. Why the edit??

@Vram Who said that phrase?

@DoubleAA Did you change it because I submitted it after tzet hakochavim and we know there's no geulah at nighttime?

@Vram It's already after dawn by you. In fact, you could have put on tefillin 6 minutes ago.

@DoubleAA True, but the answer was submitted 3 hours ago

kol hashone bediburo...

@DoubleAA See who says the phrase in Megillah 15b and who says it in Kallah 1:24

That's when barilan comes in handy

@DoubleAA

@HachamGabriel In Megillah it's Rabbi Elazer beshem Rabbi Chanina. In Kallah it's Ben Azai.

ie No one knows who actually said that phrase.

Ironic.

@DoubleAA I'd put my money on rebbe chanina

@DoubleAA Ironically, on Hullin 104b it doesn't say

@Vram also Niddah 19b

@DoubleAA msh210 seems to be back! perhaps we can ask him to clear up our discussion here?

@msh210 can you clear up this issue?

@هه im enam n'viim b'ne n'viim hem

@هه I've got quite a bit of backreading to do in this room, but now is not the time. I did notice this, though, so will answer: I was a guest, with scarce Internet access.

@msh210 I think Amos 7:14 is more applicable.

@msh210 You're backreading from April 2??? You missed a lot of good stuff!

@DoubleAA I will be, bl"n. I'm not yet. Now, to bed. Good night, all.

obscene?!?

Just a small point - once we graduate, a lot of privileges will take a lot more points.

Should we start a "Voting" campaign?

The thing I don't like is that commenting takes fifty points.

It makes an even well meaning person have to write an answer and have someone flag it to turn it into a comment.

@ShmuelBrin On the plus side, it means Vram might stop giving away all his points, because he'll want to retain the right to comment, downvote and vote-to-close.

@ShmuelBrin FWIW They are always able to comment on their own posts and IIRC all answers to questions they ask.

@DoubleAA why exactly is that a plus side? do you dislike it when i promote questions with bounties?

רבותינו הגיע זמן קריאת שמע של שחרית

good morning/good night/good afternoon to you all.

@Vram But sof zman isn't for 2 hours!

@jake That's often true. I don't know about this particular case, though I've also heard that that midrash is treating it as meaning "made us seem bad". (Catching up on some backread.)

@msh210 Agreed!

@msh210 Agreed!

@msh210 Do you have other examples, perchance?

@jake Off the top of my head? In modern Hebrew (possibly in Tanach also, but I don't know), "baat" is intransitive (takes "b-") for transitive "kick"

@jake "shamar al ..." is intransitive (hence the "al") for transitive "guard" I think.

Many more, doubtless.

@msh210 Interesting... but the case of "Vayareu" is the opposite, that is, in English "to do bad things" is intransitive, but we're suggesting that the Hebrew equivalent is transitive.

@jake You don't really mean "transitive" and "intransitive".

@msh210 Perhaps. I'm not really an English grammar person. What am I thinking of?

"t" and "i" refer to whether the verb takes a direct object. It's a form-of-the-word thing. Your issue is a semantic one, one about the meaning of the word.

@msh210 Yes, but the following word "osanu" implies this word's transitive-ness, since it is the object on which the verb acts. If we translate "vayareu" as "did bad things", then in English that is intransitive because it does not act on an object.

Right?

@jake right... but the point of the vort/p'shat you mention is a semantic one, one about the meaning of "vayareu", so transitivity is not really relevant.

@msh210 But the speaker at the shiur I was at insisted that we cannot translate "did bad things" because of the reason above, which is a grammatical issue.

@jake Ah, so he was saying "es" ("osanu") implies it can't have a "for/to" in English? I doubt that's correct. Lemme try and think of a couterexample...

@msh210 Exactly.

"vayafshitu es yosef es kutonto" (is that a correct quote?), they stripped Yosef of his shirt. Weak example, but the first I can think of; I'm sure there are more...

@msh210 We can manipulate the English, though, to make it transitive as well. Something like "vayareu" == "treated <object> badly", which is transitive.

@jake True.

@msh210 Thanks. Let me know if you think of any more.

@Jin I was away from chat during the whole discussion about the logo and design but.. wow, I like it a lot. Thanks so much for keeping in touch with the community for input, and for all the hard work. Personally, I think the logo you've showed us is good as is, and doesn't need the letters to be leaves (in fact, they may make it too complicated) (but I seem to be outvoted on that score, at least among chatters here).

@Jin Also, a minor point, but I'm not sure why the top of the question mark needs to spiral so much. But overall -- very very nice.

Begin Parashat Hashavua' Chat #18 - Shemini / Tazria-Metzora 5772

Hi, @jake!

@IsaacMoses Hi. Haven't made it to one of these in a while.

Hi, @everyone else who may or may not still be in here.

@jake I sure haven't

... But I have my R' Hirsch with me, for the first time!

@IsaacMoses Welcome to the chat, R' Hirsch!

OK, so anyone got a starter topic?

@msh210 (I'd respond on his behalf, but it would be a crime to ascribe writing of the quality that I can produce to him.)

Hi, @downcast-eyes!

Anyone here ever tasted grasshoppers?

@IsaacMoses I thought it was "ha ha".

@IsaacMoses There was a "mesorah dinner" including them some times ago. I did not attend.

@msh210 R' Zivitofsky, et al.?

@IsaacMoses Don't recall.

@msh210 I heard of such happening in Israel, with him beingo one of the organizers, I think.

@msh210 How should I know?

Just wondering: "וַיִּשָּׂא אַהֲרֹן אֶת-(יָדָו) [יָדָיו] אֶל-הָעָם וַיְבָרֲכֵם" (Lev. 9:22). Is this the first ever Birchas Kohanim?

@jake When was the section describing the genral procedure (in Naso) supposed to have happened?

@IsaacMoses It's placed right next to the first nasi's korbanot which happened on 1 Nissan

@jake R' Hirsch brigns down Sota 38b, indicating that this was, indeed, a special case of B"K, and deriving laws for the general case from this

@IsaacMoses Not sure. Ramban seems to think it may have been here, chronologically speaking, although perhaps unlikely. It was the same day, but was it before this b'racha?

@jake Hmm. How else would Aharon have known what to do?

@IsaacMoses It could be that Aharon made it up and Hashem told him after to always do it that way.

...to which I guess the appropriate response would be "Baruch shekivanti". :-)

Interestingly, 9:6-7 opens with command through Moshe for Aharon to do the offerings, and 9:22 closes the account of the offering wiht "as Moshe had commanded", then comes 9:22 with the blessing, perhaps indicating that the command for the latter was separate (or subsequent, as @jake is suggesting)

@msh210 I guess it would be similar to the case of sefer Devarim, which some say that Moshe said on his own accord, but later Hashem told him to write it in the Torah. See the P' Devarim chat.

@IsaacMoses ... also from the Midrash: "... this beracha, as T"K tells us, was none other than the statutory birkat kohanim prescribed for all time ..."

is it possible to look up Torat Kohanim online?

@DoubleAA Do you read that as implying that it was his initiative?

@IsaacMoses I think it's unclear.

hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14026&st=&pgnum=131

@DoubleAA, @HodofHod, bruchim tihyu.

@IsaacMoses Catching up on the thread, but I just found a sicha by the Lubavitcher Rebbe where indeed he says just that: this was Aharon's own idea. (hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15952&st=&pgnum=56)

Shemini 3 Sifra Parshata 1:30: "'And he blessed them' - this is a beracha setuma that you don't know, and Scripture returned and explicated later on: 'Yevarechacha ...'"

@jake @IsaacMoses The Ramban here in Shemini suggests that the command in Nasso preceded this event (he notes as I did that it is next to the parshiyot of the nesiim). He also suggests that maybe here it was Aharon's idea and hand raising was a standard posture for giving blessings like we see by Shelomo HaMelech (Kings 8:22).

@DoubleAA R' Hirsch says the hand-raising is to point toward the One above, Who's actually providing the blessing, which may be why "his hands" is written missing a letter here - the blessing's not therein.

@DoubleAA Also, the Rebbe points out that if it was birkas kohanim, then Aharon's sons should have joined in too

@Alex Any more interesting detail for us non-Yiddish-readers?

@IsaacMoses It's a whole sicha, and kind of long to summarize, but let me see

@Alex Does he deal with the Midrash that derives laws for general B"K from here?

One of the points there is that Aharon meant the following with it: יברכך - Hashem (not I, who made the eigel) should bless you; יאר - may He cause His shechinah to rest on you; and ישא - may He forgive the sin of the eigel.

@Alex So he did say the same formula here, preceding the command for it?

@IsaacMoses That seems to be the idea, yes. Rashi in fact says that his berachah was יברכך, יאר, ישא - presumably meaning the entire text of each of these pesukim.

@IsaacMoses Ah, it's good to hear a R. Hirsch vort again! I've missed those.

Quick new topic: "לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין הַטָּמֵא וּבֵין הַטָּהֹר וּבֵין הַחַיָּה הַנֶּאֱכֶלֶת וּבֵין הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא תֵאָכֵל" (Lev. 11:47). Is that a list of four categories, or two separate dichotomies, or perhaps a parallelism of the same dichotomy twice?

@Alex We know the brikat kohanim in the mikdash was different than in the medina (one bracha vs three brachas; hands above head vs shoulders). Perhaps it is part of the avoda and was only said by a kohein who helped in the avoda that day.

@DoubleAA Bingo! ...

@DoubleAA But Aharon's sons participated in the avodah too, didn't they? After the deaths of Nadav and Avihu they couldn't do so, but this was before that

@jake Rashi says 2 different dichotomies.

@DoubleAA IIRC mishnayos Tamid imply it was said only by those who served that day.

@Alex It seems at least for this first avoda (the milluim) that aharon did all the important avodot. pay attention to the singular and plural verbs.

@Alex Only Aharon did the final Tenufa, immediately preceding the blessing

@msh210 Although in principle I guess there could be three: things we can eat that don't make us tamei, those that we can't eat that don't either (a treifah that was slaughtered properly), and those that we can't eat that do make us tamei (dead animals, sheratzim, etc.)

@Alex That's 2 dichotomies: whether it's m'tame and whether it's edible.

@msh210 Tamid 7:2? I don't think it's so clear either way.

@DoubleAA They did holachah, at least (9:9). But that's true, it was mostly a one-man show.

@Alex Anyway, that's not what Rashi says there.

@DoubleAA Link?

@msh210 True, just noodling.

@msh210 mechon-mamre.org/b/h/h59.htm

@msh210 Based on the pesukim, it seems that the requirement would have to be participation in one of the main avodot, not just being around and doing non-meakeiv stuff. It seems from the mishna that possibly anyone who was around joined in.

@DoubleAA That might have been a special case, though, since they were standing on the steps of the ulam. Weren't kohanim allowed into that area only if they had an avodah to perform? (Then again, birkas kohanim itself is an avodah too.)

Sotah 38b: "R. Joshua b. Levi also said: Any kohen who does not ascend [the platform] in the 'Service'7 may not ascend later; as it is said: And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people, and blessed them, — and he came down from offering the sin-offering and the burnt-offering and the peace-offering.8 ...

... As in this passage [the benediction occurred] during the 'Service', so here [in the Synagogue] it must be [during the prayers relating to] the 'Service'."

@msh210 I see that Ibn Ezra says it's the same dichotomy, once for birds/sh'ratzim, once for chayos.

@DoubleAA Gotts check the m'far'shim there....

@jake Sorry?

R' Hirsh: "Hence the sentence 'Any kohen who does not...' Birkat Kohanim is no independent absolute act, standing on its own. Only as a result of the preceding Avoda are the blessings expressed in it to be achieved, and only in close association with the Avoda my Birkat Kohanim be said."

@msh210 IOW, It's the same kosher/non-kosher dichotomy, but the repetition refers to different category of animals. At least I think that's what he means. Judge for yourself. daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/…

@DoubleAA Actually, I see where Radvaz says that the kohanim who were able to perform the avodah stood on the steps of the ulam, while the baalei mum stood on the duchan. So it sounds like at least some kohanim could indeed say birkas kohanim without having previously performed the avodah.

@Alex Nice. Thanks.

@Alex Perhaps this prototypical case was meant to clearly demonstrate the rule to which you're citing possible exceptions.

@msh210 It's interesting, though. If I were the author, I would have written "bein... u'vein" then again "bein... u'vein". Instead the Torah writes "bein... u'vein... u'vein... u'vein...", which makes it sound like four exclusive categories.

@jake Well, if we go with Rashi, then they are: an animal can have been properly or improperly slaughtered (which makes a difference whether it's neveilah or not) as well as have fatal or nonfatal treifah symptoms

and if we go with Ibn Ezra, then unkosher birds, sheratzim, and animals each have their own rules as far as tum'ah

@StackExchange Had he sold it off before pesach?

Gotta go. Yeyasher kochachem! I sure wich I could do this more often.

@DoubleAA Forgot to do that. The room's current owners have to do it manually; it doens't come automatically with mod-ship

@Alex Good point. I seem to remember Malbim differentiating betweem "bein... u'vein" and "bein... l'..." Do you by any chance remember the difference?

@jake Can't remember something I've never learned. :) I only have a searchable Malbim on Nach, so I'm not sure where to look in his Chumash commentary

Returning to the kohanim and the avodah: Tamid 5:6 says that they sounded the alarm (by throwing the magreifah) so that "any kohen who heard it would know that his fellow kohanim were going in [to the heichal] to bow, and he would run to join them" - and then afterwards they stood on the steps of the ulam and did birkas kohanim. So it sounds like someone could indeed have missed the avodah and still made it for B"K.

@Alex All good points.

I wonder though, Aharon seems to be doing all the work except some blood holding. It reminds me strongly of the Kohein Gadol on YK.

Maybe this day (shemini) was unique and that's why only Aharon blessed the people?

Do we know if all the kohanim duchaned in the mikdash on a regular Yom Kippur?

@DoubleAA There's actually a machlokes whether the kohen gadol did the regular avodos too, or just the ones where it's mentioned. Rambam (Hil. Avodas Yom Hakippurim 4:1) says that other kohanim would do the early-morning avodos: terumas hadeshen, putting logs on the mizbe'ach, etc.

@Alex Even the rambam agrees (see 1:2) that the KG had to do some of the regular avodot (such as the menora and the regular ketoret). He just seems to distinguish between the prep-type avodot like the logs etc.

I don't think Nesiat Kapayim is a prep avoda.

Oh I think it's time to end officially.

@DoubleAA Right, though I think there are other mefarshim who say that there wasn't even a payis on Yom Kippur (contra Rambam) because the kohen gadol had to do those things too. Anyway, prep work or not, terumas hadeshen is a full-fledged avodah

End Parashat Hashavua' Chat #18 - Shemini / Tazria-Metzora 5772

but of course feel free to continue chatting :)

@Alex I agree it's an avoda (ie a zar shouldn't do it), the question is what things does the rambam exclude from the kohein gadol because it's not just the unique avodat hayom. I'm sensing a theme of prep vs active and it seems to me that duchaning is in the latter. But this is just my speculation.

@DoubleAA "an avoda" is not the same as "a zar shouldn't do it". Eating t'ruma is no avoda.

@msh210 A zar gets mittah for doing it? How else do you want to define it?

@DoubleAA I don't know. Let's see: @Alex why do you say BK is called avoda?

@msh210 I thought it was, because it has to be done standing. But that's just because איתקש ברכה לשירות; maybe indeed it itself is not considered שירות. Let me look further.

BTW, @jake, I looked through Ayeles Hashachar and couldn't find that distinction between בין ובין and בין ל. I might have missed it, though.

Come to think of it, I guess B"K can't be a real avodah, otherwise baalei mum couldn't do it

@Alex @msh210 I gots to run. If we don't find anything explicit this afternoon, I'll post regarding KG doing BK alone on YK on the main site tonight.

@DoubleAA ok, be well. I think I'm going to have to take off too.

@Alex That might be a distinction between in and out of the mikdash. Remember there could be two types of BK.

@DoubleAA Right, but the Radvaz I mentioned earlier says that baalei mum could do it in the BHMK too, just that they'd stand on the duchan

@Alex I was just searching on bar ilan. I found Malbim on Gen. 1 about "vayavdel bein hamayim..." where he seems to imply that "havdalah bein this l'that" is separation of two things in time or space, but "havdalah bein this u'vein that" is separating their conceptual essences, i.e. making them different from one another.

Not sure if this is what I was thinking of or not, though.

What on earth is daily-living?

@msh210 I have no idea. Seems useless to me. Burninate! With the chametz!

I kid

@HodofHod Do you? I'm tempted to get rid of it.

@msh210 I would. I say "I kid" only because I didn't mean it quite that violently.

@msh210 agree. There are only three questions that have this tag, and the only tzad hashava is one that would apply to the whole website

@ShmuelBrin My thought exactly

btw. What should one tag a question which asks if something is a halacha or a minhag?

@ShmuelBrin @HodofHod Thanks. Done.

Or questions regarding minhagim that are halachically mandatory (like saying hallel on Rosh Chodesh)

@msh210 BDE

@HodofHod Do you mean BDH?

@msh210 only if we should call the "Rif" the "Riya"

@HodofHod Touche. :-)

:D

@HodofHod, could you please upvote my answer at meta.judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/848 so Community doesn't keep bumping the question for lack of positive-score answers?

@msh210 done

@HodofHod Thanks.

@ShmuelBrin This was discussed before to no conclusion: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/3958552#3958552

@DoubleAA ping