V'dibarta Bam

msh210

5:13 PM

Hi, @MonicaCellio.

msh210

5:26 PM

@ShmuelBrill @OtavioMacedo hi.

Otavio Macedo

@msh210 Hi!

msh210

Begin Parashat Hashavua' Chat #10 - Yisro 5772

Welcome, @ShmuelBrill @OtavioMacedo @Alex. Small crowd at the moment; be"H it will pick up. @IsaacMoses conveys his apologies: he's unable to make it this week.

Alex

@msh210 hello to all

I'll start. How come in this week's parsha we're told only that the Jews said "naaseh," and only at the end of Mishpatim does it add "venishma"?

msh210

@Alex Is that the same story repeated, or different occasions? Or is that part of your question?

Alex

@msh210 Hm, good point. The account in Yisro is talking about the 3rd or 4th of Sivan, the one in Mishpatim is about the 5th (I think).

Okay, so maybe indeed they just said "naaseh" the first time, and then added "venishma" later.

msh210

5:35 PM

chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9880/showrashi/true#v8

Alex

@msh210 thanks for that. And chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9885/showrashi/true#v4 says that the one in Mishpatim is indeed the 5th.

msh210

The one in Yisro is not later than the 3rd, maybe even earlier.

He brought that response to Hashem on the 3rd.

(Unless I'm reading the Rashi I linked to wrong.)

Alex

@msh210 Can't be earlier; on the 2nd he just told them about "ve'atem tihyu li mamleches kohanim," etc.

So yeah, I think you're right - they're the 3rd and 5th respectively.

msh210

So could be the 2d maybe....

The question remains, though, what the Jews were responding to each time and why their responses differed.

Alex

@msh210 Maybe that's just it. The first time Hashem isn't really asking them to do anything specific, just to "obey Me and keep My covenant." So to that they answered, "Whatever is involved, we will do." The second time, after Moshe tells them some of the details (the "sefer habris" - that works out especially well according to the mefarshim who say that this was most of Mishpatim), then they answered that they will "do" and "understand."

msh210

5:42 PM

24:3: וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיְסַפֵּר לָעָם אֵת כָּל דִּבְרֵי יְ־הֹוָ־ה וְאֵת כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וַיַּעַן כָּל הָעָם קוֹל אֶחָד וַיֹּאמְרוּ כָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְ־הֹוָ־ה נַעֲשֶׂה

(emphasis added, obviously :-) )

@Alex But yeah that explanation sounds good for 24:7 and 19:8.

Alex

@msh210 But that's just "naaseh." So that one probably is a recap of the events from Yisro.

Only after he reads the "sefer habris" do they say "naaseh venishma."

msh210

@Alex Right, that's just naase, but follows "וְאֵת כָּל הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים".

Alex

@msh210 True. So actually, that kind of hurts my theory.

msh210

@Vram, welcome.

Alex

hello, @Vram

Vram

5:45 PM

shiur is in 15 minutes but last week i liked the ideas in here

hopefully ill pick something up again this week

msh210

Can I try another topic?

Alex

@msh210 Of course

msh210

לֹא תַחְמֹד בֵּית רֵעֶךָ לֹא תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ. This sounds almost like a k'lal ufrat uchlal. Don't covet his house -- wife, et al. -- or all he has.

Alex

@msh210 Where's the first klal?

msh210

Is there any d'rasha on this pasuk's list?

Vram

5:47 PM

it starts with a prat doesnt it?

msh210

@Alex bes reecha

Or is that a p'rat also?

Vram

@msh210 i would guess thats a prat

msh210

Oh. Well, what's the rule for p'rat uchlal again? Someone?

Alex

@msh210 Basically, that it includes everything

Vram

ei atah dan ela cein haprat? or something like that?

msh210

5:49 PM

@Vram That's k. uf. uch.

Vram

right, we fell off that idea...

Alex

נעשה כלל מוסיף על הפרט, is the official expression for prat uchlal

msh210

@Alex Ah, yes, thanks.

Alex

...which I guess raises the question of why have the prat in the first place...

msh210

I still think bes reecha sounds like a k'lal, but I'll defer. Does either of you know, anyway, of any d'rasha on it?

@Alex Yes.

Alex

5:52 PM

@msh210 You know what - it looks like we were wrong and you're right! Mechilta indeed understands it as a klal uprat uklal.

msh210

@Alex Oh! You have it in hard copy, or a URL?

Vram

maybe beit isn't a physical house rather like beit ya'akov

Alex

Hard copy (Malbim chumash). Can probably find it online too, in a minute

Vram

ish uveito ba'u

Alex

hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9750&st=&pgnum=132

So let's see. It says that the prat is דבר שהוא קונה ומקנה - something that he acquires and can make someone else acquire, so the klal is the same thing

Vram

5:55 PM

what happened to eshet re'echa?? the mechilta seems to glaze over it

Alex

and then goes on to point out that the prat here is only movables, but the prat in Devarim includes also "his field," thus also including real estate in this issur

msh210

@Vram It does.

Alex

@Vram Not really. A man is koneh his wife, and he can be makneh her by divorce or his death

"vekonah es atzmah"

msh210

@Alex Oh, okay.

I don't understand what he's saying in "‫דבר שאי אפשר לבוא‬ ‫ברשותך אלא ברצון בעלים, יצא, שאתה חומד‬ ‫בתו לבנך או בנו לבתך ‬"....

Vram

@Alex what about "nechasim metaltelin"?

msh210

5:58 PM

@Vram Avdo also isn't considered mitalt'lin AFAIK.

Vram

@msh210 IIRC it has properties of both karka and metaltelin

Alex

@msh210 Not sure either, but maybe that it's possible for you to marry off your child to someone else's child without having your mechutan's consent

Vram

@msh210 i think an eved is nikneh thru meshicha or a form of it (i.e. calling him to work for you and he steps forward) which is pretty much like shoro vachamoro

msh210

@Vram it's a mishna in Kidushin, hang on....

Vram

gtg but these transcripts are saved, right? I can check them later?

msh210

6:00 PM

@Vram Yes. See chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/468/…

@Vram עבד כנעני נקנה בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה per Kidushin 1:3

Alex

@msh210 The Gemara there (22b) adds meshichah

msh210

@Alex So much for paskning from a mishna. :-)

And the Rav (on that mishna) says או שהגביה הרב את העבד

He makes it sound like he means it as a form of chazaka though.

@AvrohomYitzchok, oh, hi. Sorry, didn't see you here until just now.

Alex

@msh210 That might be referring to the other things there (incluing the eved picking up the master).

msh210

@Alex What might?

Alex

@msh210 Calling it chazakah.

msh210

6:06 PM

Oh. Yeah, maybe. But he does list that among all the other chazaka things.

Alex

Actually, I see where Rambam draws a distinction: meshichah works with adult slaves only if you actually grab him and make him come. Just calling him works only if the slave is a minor.

msh210

I seem vaguely to recall hagbaha and m'shicha as being essentially the same kinyan, but could be totally wrong....

@Alex perush hamishnayos?

Alex

@msh210 Hilchos Mechirah 2:3.

@msh210 Maybe that's the point, actually. Rambam defines chazakah as שישתמש בו כדרך שמשתמשין בעבדים, and grabbing the guy and forcing him to move probably fits under that criterion too.

msh210

@Alex Ah, thanks.

@Alex I'd think instructing him to, too. Why would a katan be different?

"עבד קטן הרי הוא כבהמה"??

Alex

@msh210 An adult has daas. When you call him, he's not really moving under your power, but his own.

Vram

6:11 PM

It comes up in bava metziah. First perek I think

msh210

@Alex As you know if you've seen kids interact with their parents, they may not have legal daas but they certainly move or not-move under their own power.

@Vram That a katan can be nikne by calling him to you but an adult can't?

Alex

@msh210 Okay, but without daas, I guess it's something legally more like instinct

msh210

(We've certainly strayed from the topic. Anyone who wants to bring up something from the parasha, please do so!)

Alex

@msh210 It's a good introduction to next week's parsha :)

msh210

@Alex :-) True.

@Alex This week's, too. Avaday hem and all that.

Alex

6:15 PM

@msh210 Okay, then, so how many of those five kinds of kinyan did Hashem do with us? There was kesef (the wealth of the Egyptians), shtar (the Torah), meshichah (לכתך אחרי במדבר)...

msh210

@Alex Chazaka (kafa alehem har k'gigis)?

Alex

@msh210 Not the same as holding on to us

msh210

@Alex No.

Alex

Maybe ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים?

msh210

Well, התיר לו מנעלו או שהנעיל לו מנעלו או שהוליך כליו לבית המרחץ או שהפשיטו או סכו או גרדו או הלבישו -- does doing mitzvos count?

Vram

6:17 PM

He created us out of nothing. That's not a case which people can relate to cuz we can't create things out of nothing.

msh210

@Alex to count as lifting us? Or **aale** eschem min haaretz hazos el eretz... (that's a misquote).

Alex

@msh210 Maybe not. Most if not all of the things Rambam lists are degrading (they're the ones you can't have an eved ivri do for you). Mitzvos aren't.

@msh210 Yep.

msh210

@Alex Yep, it's a misquote? yeah, I know. But He does refer to "I will lift you out of this land to a good land" somewhere, I believe

@Alex That m'shicha wouldn't count for an adult, though....

Alex

@msh210 No, I wasn't meaning to ding you for the misquote - it was reasonably close, and got the point across - the exact quote is אעלה אתכם מעני מצרים אל ארץ וגו'. But I meant "yep" as in that ואשא אתכם can be the lifting for chazakah.

@msh210 "כי נער ישראל ואוהבהו"

@Vram That probably bears more on our relationship to Hashem as children than as servants.

msh210

@Alex We're treading deep into b'derech d'rush territory, approaching derech tzachus....

Alex

6:22 PM

@msh210 Indeed. Anyone else have any pshat-related questions to discuss?

msh210

Didn't it already tell us the reasons for Moshe's sons' names?

Alex

@msh210 Gershom, yes. Eliezer hasn't been named yet, IIRC.

So yeah, the question might be why it has to repeat it about Gershom.

msh210

Ah, I see. 2:22, "ki amar ger hayisi b'eretz nochriya"

Same wording as here (18:3-4).

@Alex Yes.

Oh, Ramban seems to discuss it.

Alex

@msh210 What's he say?

msh210

@Alex It's in two places. Looking.

Alex

6:28 PM

Meanwhile: Malbim also talks about it. He says: don't think that Moshe had sent away Tzipporah and his children because he didn't like them. We see that he gave his sons names representing the major events in his life, showing that they were dear to him (and that he had sent them away only because he had such an important mission to fulfill).

Vram

@Alex Acc to rabbenu bachyeh, tziporah named gereshom. (artscroll footnote). Not that it's a question, just saying.

Alex

@Vram Interesting. What's he do with כי אמר, I wonder?

msh210

Ramban says Eliezer wasn't named when he was born (he explains why...), and it didn't mention his being named thereafter (I don't see that he explains why); here, after the Egyptians drowned and Moshe is king, he wants to praise Hashem for the ger hayisi and the eloke avi b'ezri.

... if I understand him correctly.

Even so, that doesn't explain (as far as I see) why it mentions their names' reasons specifically at the Tzipora story, unless it's just because it's a convenient time, since it's mentioning them anyway.

Vram

@Alex he addresses it (acc to artscroll footnote). He says she named him based on Moshes life events to show her endearment for him

msh210

End Parashat Hashavua' Chat #10 - Yisro 5772

but of course keep discussing as long as you want!

Alex

6:35 PM

@Vram Hm. I do see where he says that Gershom was special to his mother, especially since she saved him from death by giving him a bris (evidently Rabbeinu Bechayei understands that the angel was threatening the baby, not Moshe), but I don't see where he says that she named him.

msh210

Y'yasher kochachem.

Alex

@msh210 Vechein lemar.

msh210

@Alex By the way, one of the two Rambans I linked to mentions it was Eliezer she was mala.

This one: he.wikisource.org/wiki/…

"ויתכן כי קודם הדבור הנדבר לו בהר האלהים לא נולד לו רק גרשום אבל היתה צפורה הרה וכאשר שב אל יתר חותנו ילדה ובעבור כי היה דבר המלך נחוץ לא מל אותו ולא קרא לו שם ובדרך כאשר מלה אותו אמו לא קראה לו שם" etc.

Alex

@msh210 Right, Rashi also says that it was Eliezer.

Vram

@Alex I'm looking at an artscroll footnote I didn't see it inside. 18:3.

Alex

6:39 PM

@Vram Thanks. I'll look at it when I get a chance.

msh210

@Vram The Stone chumash?

Vram

Yup

msh210

@Alex Good point. :-) Thanks

Alex

@msh210 So there is also some source I recall (besides R.B.) that it was rather Gershom - something about Yisro forcing Moshe to promise that he wouldn't make a bris for his firstborn, and would raise him to worship idols. Don't recall the details, though.

msh210

@Alex Googling firstborn idol priest yisro gershom, first result quotes what you said in the name of the baal haturim.

[removed]

Naturally, I don't know where that baal haturim is, nor whether it's the long or short work of that 'title'. Nor whether that Web page quotes it right.

Vram

6:45 PM

@Alex wasn't gershom a navi sheker in The book of Yehoshua? Or was that eliezer? Or am I mixing things up?

msh210

@Vram Shof'tim I believe, and a priest for a"z not a navi sheker.

Alex

@msh210 Yep. Specifically, for Micha's idol.

And actually, it was Gershom's son Yehonasan.

msh210

@Alex Ah, thanks. I was trying to remember.

Alex

@msh210 Thanks. Found it - in the short peirush to 18:3.

msh210

@Vram See what I quoted above.

Alex

6:48 PM

I should really get going. Yasher koach to all!

msh210

@Alex & you.

Vram

@msh210 I see. The whole quote didn't come up originally.

msh210

@Alex And not quite as that Web page quotes it. I'll remove that quote from the chat....

Stack Exchange

7:14 PM

Stack Overflow Blog: Stack Exchange Keyboard Shortcuts

Posted by Jeff Atwood on February 8th, 2012

Scott Hanselman’s article about keyboard shortcuts and web sites reminded me that I inexplicably forgot to blog about our very own totally awesome set of keyboard shortcuts for Stack Exchange!

While we haven’t yet integrated keyboard shortcuts into the core site, the Stack Exchange Official Keyboard Shortcuts browser script is explicitly supported and actively maintained by us (mostly through the hard work of Ben and Rebecca).

If you’re a website keyboard type of guy or gal, give it a shot. There’s a nice, friendly tag wiki on how to install browser scripts on the Stack Apps scripts tab, but for convenience I’ve included the direct links to install below: …

Transcript for