[Avodah] Leshon haKodesh

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 02:47:19PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Did you miss the searches for "tiken" and "Moshe tiken"?  That shows
> many examples of "takanos", including many that are clearly not
> "repairs" of a broken situation, so you can't explain them that way.

Of course they are. Every bit of rabbinic legislation is a repair.

However, qoneih also refers to making something yeish miyeish. See
the Rambam on the discussion between Malkhitzedeq and Avraham on
"Qoneih Shamayim vaAretz" vs "Keil Elyon Qoneih Shamayim vaAretz".

>> Even so, the world was established already. It would be a little late
>> to discuss establishing the world at this point in its existence.

> Aleinu doesn't say that Hashem will establish the world, it says that
> He will establish it under his sovereignty.  That hasn't happened yet;
> He's still only our King, not the world's.

That would be a repair, since the world is established already. One might
say "re-establish", but to insist on that is neither provable nor more
similar to "establish" than "repair".

And then there is also the yeish meyeish sense.

>> The BDB does refer to a translation of "to establish" -- but only when
>> mentioning the Aramaic cognate. Not the Hebrew word.

> How about Koheles 12:9?

What about it? Did he improve or establish those parables? For that
matter, how do you establish a parable rather than write it? JPS renders
the end of the pasuq as "set in order".

>>>                    .  In Aleinu, the most straightforward translation,
>>> indeed ISTM the only translation that doesn't require any stretching, is
>>> "to establish the world under Hashem's sovereignty"....
>
>> I think you're stuck on the notion that "be-" means in. However, it
>> equally means "through the aegis of". E.g. "qadsheinu bemitzvosekha,
>> vesein chelqeinu beSorasekha... vesamcheinu biyshuasekha".

> "vesein chelkeinu besorasecha", at least, means "in", not "through".
> As in "chavalim naflu li ban`imim".

Then your list is all broken, in which "be-" shifts meaning in the middle.

In any case, my point was just that both meanings exist, and thus "to repair
the world using the Malkhus of the One Who Sets Limits".

>> I don't think there is an appropriate translation for Malkhus here. It's
>> clear from how the tefillah continues that the connotation of "ein
>> melekh belo am" is central to what's being said. "Sovereignty", "rule"
>> and "kingship" do not carry that meaning.

> Don't they?  "Sovereignty", at least, means that it's acknowledged,
> that, as it continues immediately, "kol benei vasar yikre'u vishmecha".

I'm not going to bother arguing English. Sovereignty doesn't mean by the
will of the people. Malkhus does. Check OED or Marriam-Webster, if it's
important to you. English, unlike Hebrew, simply isn't important enough
to be worth the debate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
micha at aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln