[Avodah] "Es Yom HaShmini Ho'Atzeres Hazeh"

[RallisW at aol.com]

Rabbi Wax's response:
 
I assume that AISI, as it came thru is a Hebrew that my  computor could not 
read, and I assume it is Atzeret.  Granted Shavuot is  atzeret only in rabbinic 
usagae, but the reference of Atazeret in Pesach is  certainly biblical.  I 
will examine the rest of your words later when i  have more time.  In the 
meantime, can you send me transliteration of any  terms that you sent in Hebrew 
letters?  Thanks.
 
 
 
 
 
There are several  problems with the Rema and with your analogies.  
First of all, there  are three holidays referred to as  Atzeret.  One is to 
the  seventh day of Pesach.  Another is  Shavuot. 




WADR this is a red-herring  argument. The Rema is specifically referring to 
Biblical Terminology; while  Atzeret as referring to Shavuos appears NOWHERE in 
Humash because it is of  rabbincal usage only.





 
The third is Shmini  Atzeret.  The first two are definitely in the category 
of CHAG.  So  if nothing else, we have a gezera shava "atzeret - atzeret" to 
include Shmini  Atzeret as a chag.
Second, if you look in  Parashat Pinchas, where all of the chaggim and their 
respective korbanot are  listed, in the last item (Eighth Day...) it says:  
Bayom Hashmini  (stop) Atzeret ti'yeh lachem....
Since this pasuk is  part of the listing of all of the chaggim, obviously 
Atzeret is the name of  this holiday of the eighth day.
This is also why I  believe that those who say Shmini Chaga Hatzeret Hazeh 
are  more correct than those who say Shmini Atzeret HaChag  Hazeh.









I don't  deny that there are other valid reads
My points were simple and  multi-faceted, to whit: 
    1.  Rema saw a pattern [aisi the terms were Tanach based NOT  hazal 
based] 
    2.  He presumed that since Hag was absent from the Humash for  this 
holiday that this absence was significant. [ e.g. Dr. Yaakov Elman posits  that 
Ramban sees Torah as "omisignificant"] 
    3.  I extrapolate from this as follows: even were we to reject  the 
Rema's conclusion [as you did] you can still view his methodology as  having merit. 
IOW that one can find patterns and use them to draw inferences  w/o drawing 
that particular inference 
    4.  This logic is really akin to davar halameid mei'inyano.   I.E. it is 
a form of analysis by means of context.
Illustation: We accept that the lo Tignov in  the aseres hadibros is striclty 
in reference to gneivas nefashos by the method  of davar halaeim mei-inyano 
[see Rashi] 

There are probably a billion  XTIANS who are familiar with the 10 
Commandments who would be flabbergasted to  see Lo Tignov as so highly restricted in 
scope!  Particularly when you  consider the broaderr scope of g'neiva within 7 
mitzovs b'nei no'ach [inyona  d'yoma]!  And Occums' Razor logic would posit the 
broader read as more  likley/logical.   Nevertheless, this is valid Rabbinical 
technique.  

Summary: The Rema's particular conclusions have indeed been called into  
question. This does not necessarily invalidate the technique of analysis by  
structure, context, or analogy.




************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071011/91c50b63/attachment-0002.htm>