On 10/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:RallisW@aol.com">RallisW@aol.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:RallisW@aol.com">RallisW@aol.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;"><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2">
</font><div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">Rabbi Burton Wax of Cong. Ezras Israel in
Chicago:</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3"></font> </font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">There are several problems with the Rema and with your
analogies. </font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">First of all, there are three holidays referred to as
Atzeret. One is to the seventh day of Pesach. Another is
Shavuot. </font></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><font style="font-style: italic;" size="4">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.<br></font><br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style="font-size: 10pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial;">
<div><div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3"> 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.</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">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....</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">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.</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><font size="3">This is also why I believe that those who say Shmini Chaga
Hatzeret Hazeh are more</font> <font size="3">correct than those who say
Shmini Atzeret HaChag Hazeh.</font></font></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><br></div><br></div><br><font style="font-style: italic;" size="4">I don't deny that there are other valid reads<br>My points were simple and multi-faceted, to whit:
<br></font><ol style="font-style: italic;"><li><font size="4">Rema saw a pattern [aisi the terms were Tanach based NOT hazal based] <br></font></li><li><font size="4">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"] <br></font></li><li><font size="4">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
<br></font></li><li><font size="4">This logic is really akin to davar halameid mei'inyano. I.E. it is a form of analysis by means of context.</font></li></ol><font style="font-style: italic;" size="4">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]
<br><br>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.
<br><br>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.</font><br>-- <br>Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
<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>