Conversation started Jul 18, 2012 at 17:31.
Jul 18, 2012 17:31
Well, we have a nice crowd, though some of youse ain't Mi Yodeyans (or, I'm guessing, interested in the subject matter). Welcome to Parashat Hashavua' Chat #29 - Matot-Mas'e 5772, @HodofHod @TRiG @yehuda @MonicaCellio @OrigamiRobot @DoubleAA @jrg
@msh210 Not Mi Yodeyans yet, but hope springs eternal. :-)
@msh210 Well, for a given value of interested.
in English Language and Usage, Oct 8 '11 at 19:58, by TRiG
@RegDwightѬſ道 Like Douglas Adams, I find religion endlessly fascinating, but it does puzzle me that other people take it seriously.
@MonicaCellio Indeed. Anyone have anything to start us off with? (I personally am sans books except what I see online, and unable to pay complete attention here. Speaking of which:) Sources for Matot.
I'm sans books too and I should have checked this at home, but... what's with the 2.5 tribes that decided to take the land they had rather than what was promised? They said it was good land, but surely what was to come would be better? Why not take it?
(Lack of faith? Short-sightedness?)
@MonicaCellio Ugh, just heard a maamar on this the other night. Let's see if I can find it.
Jul 18, 2012 17:34
@MonicaCellio What do you mean by "they had"? Everyone was east of the Jordan, but no one "owned" that land.
@MonicaCellio Also, note that only two tribes requested that land. (Part of M'nashe also got it because there was more than enough space for two tribes IIRC.)
@msh210 BEEP BOOP I am a robot. I don't know what those words mean.
@msh210 Wasn't that land they'd already conquered? But if not, that makes it even worse -- if you have to take it anyway, why shouldn't you take what God promised?
@MonicaCellio Yes, they'd conquered it; I meant that it had not been assigned to any tribe.
I also wonder about the "half tribe of Manashe" here; sometimes they're mentioned and sometimes not, and anyway, half a tribe?
@msh210 Ok, as I thought. Not assigned, but they're standing on it and they seem to be saying "this is good; can we take this and say we're done?".
@MonicaCellio Not strictly half, but part. And I don't have a paper copy (which I still find easier to leaf through) here, but check whether when they are mentioned it is because they're given it and when they're not it's because they didn't reuqest it -- i.e. whether their being mentioned correlates with request/receipt.
@MonicaCellio Right, yeah, good question (and it sounds like @HodofHod has an answer), I was merely nitpicking the details.
Jul 18, 2012 17:39
@OrigamiRobot We're talking about Numbers 32: mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0432.htm
Methinks I should get hold of the Jewish Annotated New Testament. Might be interesting reading.
@msh210 Seems so, in chap. 32 anyway.
@msh210 Reuven and Gad make the request in 32. I don't see Manashe there.
@MonicaCellio Yes, they show up at the end of the chapter (verse 33 et seq.).
5 mins ago, by msh210
@MonicaCellio Also, note that only two tribes requested that land. (Part of M'nashe also got it because there was more than enough space for two tribes IIRC.)
@msh210 Yes. Sequence seems to be: R & G ask, R & G build their cities, part of M takes Gilead, and then M is in the picture.
Machir ben Mansahe; I haven't checked how many brothers he has. (ref "half" or "part")
Jul 18, 2012 17:43
@MonicaCellio No, no, they don't build their cities before M is in the picture. Verse 33 is still "giving" before the building.
@msh210 ? 37 And the children of Reuben built Heshbon, and Elealeh, and Kiriathaim;
@MonicaCellio Yes, I've edited the chat post you responded to :-)
@msh210 Oh, sorry.
So sequencing aside, I'm still wondering about motivations.
Also, for example, the Torah often refers to חצי שבט מנשה having received territory on the east side of the Jordan, but from Josh. 17:1-2 we see that in fact most of the tribe (six subfamilies of Gilead) were assigned to the west side (Eretz Yisrael proper). — Alex Apr 20 at 16:39
But if @HodofHod has something I can wait. Anyone else got something?
Jul 18, 2012 17:46
et seq
@DoubleAA Thanks! (Good memory, or search?)
@MonicaCellio This page touches on your question: chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/92830/jewish/Matos.htm, although it's not what I had in mind
@MonicaCellio Bad memory.
@HodofHod Thanks!
Anyone else have a topic? (I've got more, but I don't want to dominate.)
@MonicaCellio Another one (very long, though) here chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/298378/jewish/…
@MonicaCellio I don't. Go for it!
Jul 18, 2012 17:53
@HodofHod thanks - stuck it in a tab for later reading.
Ok. Something I've wondered about oftern, and it comes up again at the beginning of this week (Num 31, for our onlookers): why would anybody voluntarily take a vow or make an oath? It seems dangerous and what good can come from it? I feel like I'm missing something fundamental.
@MonicaCellio (I've just realized that they have an entire page of links for this topic chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/14177/jewish/…)
@HodofHod Ooh.
@MonicaCellio That's a good one!
@MonicaCellio chap. 30
@msh210 fixed... thought I fixed, but I guess not
Jul 18, 2012 18:00
@MonicaCellio One reason I've heard -- no source for it atm -- is that someone who has a particular bad predilection might enforce a resolution against it with a vow. E.g., suppose someone eats too much unhealthful food, he might swear off milkshakes. Or if he gossips too much, he might swear off using Twitter.
@msh210 So he creates for himself a dire situation so he has to follow through?
@MonicaCellio Oddly, though, one thing that I've seen a lot of (and I never learned N'darim) is "hamudar hanaa mechavero", someone who's sworn off deriving bvenefit from a specific other person. I can only imagine why someone would do that: because he hates the other guy? because the other guy is poor and he doesn't want to deprive him? I really wish I knew.
@MonicaCellio Yeah, I think so.
@msh210 Yeah, I'm puzzled by that too but never dug into it.
@MonicaCellio Blind leading the blind here.
I wonder if someone who needs to make a vow to correct a behavior he can't correct otherwise risks placing a stumbling-block before himself -- he knows his will is weak, and by making the vow things will be even worse for him if he fails -- would his rav permit it if he knew? (Just speculating/wondering out loud.)
Another case of making a vow is as a promise to God in exchange for a good outcome (e.g. Yiftach). But since God owns everything can one really bribe God?
("bribe" is my word; I'm not accusing Yiftach of bad motives.)
Jul 18, 2012 18:07
5
A: How can I curb my sexual desire?

b aRashi on the top of Bechoros 46a, the last Rashi of the perek (chapter), says to make a neder.

@DoubleAA Thanks!
@DoubleAA Thanks!
@msh210 Not fluent enough, I'm afraid. Can you tell me enough about it that I might search it out in English? (I'm failing to parse the title as something I recognize, which could be "Monica doesn't know how to infer vowels well enough" rather than an unfamiliar title...)
@MonicaCellio Sorry! It's Eccles. 5:4.
Jul 18, 2012 18:16
@msh210 See also devarim 23 23 mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0523.htm#23
@MonicaCellio Bribe is the wrong word, I think. But though G-d is the owner of all, he still desires our mitzvos, for some reason. ("af a taavah iz nisht kein kashes")
@msh210 Oh! Yeah, should have spotted Kohelet. I was staring at קטגוריה and missed it I guess.
@MonicaCellio That's "Category". "Category: Ecclesiastes 5 4".
@HodofHod Bribe isn't the right word, yeah. I was trying to get at the "if You do this for me I'll do this for You" aspect; God wants our mitzvot but doesn't he want them to be without strings too?
Jul 18, 2012 18:18
@MonicaCellio I can't find an English online, but you should read Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah Siman 203 which is entitled "Which vows are good and which are bad." Hebrew available here hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9732&st=&pgnum=290
Thanks @msh210 @DoubleAA for the pointers and translations.
@MonicaCellio "m'toch lo l'shma, ba l'shma"
roughly "do something not for the right reasons, that you should eventually do it for the right reasons"
Does anyone know of English Shulchan Aruch online? Just Mechaber and Rama.
@HodofHod I parsed that as "in the midst of not hearing, come hear". Thanks for the elucidation.
@DoubleAA Wikisource is workingon it -- very very slowly.
@MonicaCellio lishmah = literally for its name = for its own sake
Jul 18, 2012 18:23
@msh210 And with a hey at the end, not an ayin.
3
Q: Does Ma'aser count if you have an ulterior motive?

Seth JLeaving aside, for purposes of this question, any issues of monetary benefit associated with giving charity (tax deductions, supporting school fundraisers by purchasing items at a discount, etc.), which, in most cases, at least, it's possible to track how much monetary savings are associated with...

@msh210 Oh, like torah lishma. Done in by translit again!
(I live in this world where I can't completely just read the Hebrew, but I can still be helped by it...)
@MonicaCellio Ask the prof's permission and sit in on a college Hebrew course. (Or take the course.) Or maybe some Jewish resource around you offers Hebrew courses.
@msh210 Working on it. Alas, those classes are currently smack in the middle of the work day, but I check every semester. I'm working with books on my own plus studying in Hebrew (with lots of help) with a chevruta.
Didn't mean to divert the parsha chat. Anyone else have anything?
Why do we get a date for Aharon's death?
(It's 1 Av in year 40 which means his yartzeit is this Friday.)
Jul 18, 2012 18:32
@DoubleAA Good question.
Jun 27 at 17:43, by Double AA
Ok so maybe this one will have to turn into a real question :)
How about: how do we know the prohibition on marrying a woman from another tribe only applied then?
Moreover, why should it only apply then? The concern for land transfer existed even later in history.
@DoubleAA "only then" = when? (I know it ended 15 Av, but I don't know what year. :-) )
@DoubleAA Yeah, I've wondered about this, too.
@msh210 I meant 'then' in the Torah-Yehoshua general time period.
@DoubleAA yes, but when precisely? Any idea?
Jul 18, 2012 18:51
@msh210 Hmm see Taanit 30b
@DoubleAA Rashi: "they got up and allowed it on 15 Av"
@DoubleAA It does say "this generation" but that's pretty vague
@msh210 Very vague. Who's they? And by what right are they doing this? And what year was it?
@DoubleAA Perhaps the commentaries there have more. I can't check now. B'li neder another time.
@DoubleAA Exactly.
@msh210 Moreover it's not exactly the most convincing drasha. It's very much against pshat in the psukim IMO
Welcome @ShmuelBrin
End of Parashat Hashavua' Chat #29. Thanks for participating!
 
Conversation ended Jul 18, 2012 at 18:59.