<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/3/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jonathan Baker</b> <<a href="mailto:jjbaker@panix.com">jjbaker@panix.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
RRW has been regaling us with his theory about Zman Simchateinu<br>necessarily corresponding to a historical commemoration of the<br>dedication of the Temple.<br><br>I feel he has put the cart before the horse: Zman Simchateinu
<br>is part of the Biblical definition of Sukkot, while the Temple<br>came about almost 500 years later.<br><br>I have an extended rejoinder here:<br><a href="http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/10/zman-simchateinu-or-not.html">
http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/10/zman-simchateinu-or-not.html</a><br>-- <br></blockquote></div><br>WADR you are not putting dealing with my SPECIFIC CART NOR HORSE <br>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
<br>
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 <br><br>
And AFAIK there is no evidence that Z'man simchateinu is earlier than the Bayyit Shein era when these words were composed.<br><br>Parallels:<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">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.
<br></div><br><br>JB accuses me of positing that:<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;"><<Sukkot must celebrate a specific historic event too>> <br></div><br> 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.
<br><br>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.
<br><br>So to bifurcate JB's points<br><ol><li>I posit that the MUST be a specifc - not a fluffy fuzzy - event to observe in Z'man Simachateinu.</li><li>I SPECULATE - with strong hints - that this event is binyan bet hamikdash
</li></ol><br>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.
<br><br>Gmar Tov<br>Best Wishes for 5768,<br><a href="mailto:RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com</a><br>Please Visit: <br><a href="http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/">http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/</a>