[Avodah] Zman Simchateinu - rejoinder to RRW

[Richard Wolpoe]

On 10/3/07, Jonathan Baker <jjbaker at panix.com> wrote:
>
> RRW has been regaling us with his theory about Zman Simchateinu
> necessarily corresponding to a historical commemoration of the
> dedication of the Temple.
>
> I feel he has put the cart before the horse: Zman Simchateinu
> is part of the Biblical definition of Sukkot, while the Temple
> came about almost 500 years later.
>
> I have an extended rejoinder here:
> http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/10/zman-simchateinu-or-not.html
> --
>

WADR you are not putting dealing with my SPECIFIC CART NOR HORSE
I never said that the Binyan Mikdash during sukkot was DESIGNED by Sh,lomn
to make it INTO a Simcha any more than the Roman's DESIGNED Tisha B'av as a
day of Mourning.  it is quite possible that Shlomoh had his motives and
Dvinie KISMET made it on Sukkos - So
if you want to wax mystical, God reserved THAT time for Simcha ,regardles of
shlomoh's motives.  I am also saying that NOW - after tthe facts -  z'man
simchateinu simply reflects a specific historical event

And AFAIK there is no evidence that Z'man simchateinu is earlier than the
Bayyit Shein era when these words were composed.

Parallels:
God reserved Yershlayim as "makom asher yivchar" 400 years earlier too!  Is
that Deutornomic cocnetp in Devarim AFTER the selection of yersuhalyim?  No
to Orthodox but yes to Bible Critics.  The point being you can peg something
NOW for use later - kind of like Reserved Yahrtzeit placques in Synagogue or
like my Cousin Sara  who bought her matzeiva about 10 years before she died.


JB accuses me of positing that:
<<Sukkot must celebrate a specific historic event too>>

 I stand accused and guilty. It might NOT be the binyan bet hamikdash. That
is indeed speculative although imho highly supported by a  lot of liturgical
considerations.

What I am charging JB and all is that  you cannot make a Z'man out of an
ongoing process as ajn ex post facto  ratoinale. Therefore Z'man  MUST refer
to a specific event. It might be other than binyan Beit MHamikdash. For
example, simchat beitt hasho'eivah - but that is even LATER in history. I
posit it SHOULD be historical because its 2 colleages are historical. This
is proof by context - davar halamei mei'inyono.   Assuming structure and
context is a big part of how I analyze texts. Strucuture being the 3 regalim
are inter-connected, contex that hte names in the prayerbook stem from the
same impetus.

So to bifurcate JB's points

   1. I posit that the MUST be a specifc - not a fluffy fuzzy - event to
   observe in Z'man Simachateinu.
   2. I SPECULATE - with strong hints - that this event is binyan bet
   hamikdash


Now to further bolster. When the Macccabees RE-DEDICATED the 2nd Mikdash
they observed 8 days of Hallel According to Maccabees II this is  due to a
make-up celebration of Sukkot. This kind of figures that  Sukkot IS
considered a historical  event associated with Binyan Bet Hamikdash EVEN in
the time of the  Maccabbees.  Of course this does not PROVE that there is
SIMCHA - only Hallel.

Gmar Tov
Best Wishes for 5768,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071003/077d8f1c/attachment-0002.htm>