[Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 04:06:35AM +0000, kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
: If you are using the word "nekudot" to refer to the written
: representation of sounds, then I tend to agree. Any given sound may be
: represented by this artistic diagram or by that one, and halacha doesn't
: really care.

As I mentioned, the grouping of sounds into symbols was once subject to
machloqes. The example I gave: what we call segol and patach would be
grouped as one vowel in Bavli niqud. What if Bavli niqud had won out,
rather than Tiverani? Would we be yotzei the mitzvah if we would have
started it "Sheme' Yire'eil"?

I think the symbols do reflect decisions that have halachic impact.

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 03:34:22PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: According to RY Kamenetzky, it means that everything in Nach is alluded to
: in Chumash, as per Taanis 9a - "Is there anything in the Kesuvim not hinted
: to in the Torah?"...

Well, LAD (not that RYK needs my approval, of course), it makes a lot
of sense. If it were meant more literally, there would be no problem
learning halakhah from Nakh. Nakh's halachic status reflects its being
relayed in a manner less precise than nevu'as Moshe.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
micha at aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507