parshanut torah comment - Why didn't Eliezer go straight to Avraham's family?

Avraham made Eliezer promise that he would only find a wife for Yitzchak from his family.

It seems to follow then, that as soon as Eliezer would arrive in Aram Naharaim he'd go straight to Avraham's family. After all, it was only a small family with very few (a couple of?) options to choose from (Rivkah,Ma-acha,?) - [Edit: being that 'family' here seems to refer only to descendants of Nachor (see Ramban on Bereshis 23:24- who suggests that for this reason Nachor's lineage from both wives are mentioned in the end of Parshas Vayeira)]

So why did Eliezer have to make the whole sign/prayer?

On the contrary things were more probable to go wrong this way. (See Gemara Taanit 4a)

[PS: This question is related, but certainly different.]

Answer

The Or Hachaim Bereshis 24:12 answers this question:

Eliezer was worried that once Betuel and family know that Avraham instructed him to find a wife specifically from the family and NOT from Canaan, they would offer one of their Canaanite maid servants as a match - and say that this is their own daughter.

Therefore Eliezer went by his mission/shlichut the way he did, thereby not only finding a match with exceptional character traits (being that she offers to help even more than requested of her) but also: this way when he asks her which family she's from - she would certainly answer truthfully (= 'lefi tuma') being that she wouldn't yet know the reason why he asked about her lineage.

Just for completeness :

Regarding that which the Gemara (Taanit 4a) says that Eliezer asked improperly(= 'Shelo K'Hogen' - since a blind or lame girl (or a Canaanite girl) could have offered water to him and his camels....

The Ibn Ezra Bereshis 24:14 says that he doesn't understand why the Gemara says that Eliezer asked improperly... because if the girl that passed the water test wasn't from Avraham's family - he would have left her, with no harm done.

tefilla - Tachanun on Monday and Thursday

Why do we say a longer Tachanun on Mondays and Thursdays compared to the other days of the week?

Answer

I found three reasons in Aruch HaShulchan 234. Here's my summary:

1. 
   

   These are days of acceptance (רצון). The reason for this being that Moshe Rabeinu ascended Mt. Sinai for the second tablets on Thursday and descended on Monday.

   
   


2. 
   

   These are days of judgment (דין). The courts in heaven and the earthly courts convene on these days. The sign for this is that the Maadim (Mars).

   
   


3. 
   
   

   Three zekanim (scholars) who were miraculously saved from a bishop who tried to burn them established this minhag.

   
   

product recommendation - Can I find the etrog "hay"?

Until about 10 years ago, etrogim were wrapped in hemp (flax weed). It was messy, but it kept the etrogim fresh for much longer than the foam does. I also find that the combination of the foam and the etrog box (esp. silver ones) create more moisture, and eventually, mold.

Is there some place (in NYC area) where I can get etrogim wrapped in hay or just the hay itself? (I can do the wrapping.)

FYI - Most years, when I wrapped it in the hay and kept it in the cardboard box, it shrank minimally and did not dry out to the point where I was able to use it the following year. My current year's etrog is still fine and yellow and fresh-looking. If I can find some hay, now, I may be able to salvage it for this coming Succot.

halacha - Why is milk with meat not kosher?

I've recently read (again) the verse "לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו", meaning, "Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk".

How did anyone get from that, to "Don't eat meat with milk at all"?

Answer

See here for more.

Basically, if you look carefully in Biblical Hebrew, g'di actually means "a young animal" -- usually if you didn't specify it meant a goat, but it could be a generic term for any young. Thus elsewhere it might specify g'di izim -- "a young goat."

So that gives us "don't cook a young animal in its mother's milk."

Why the thing about "mother's"? Hebrew lesson once again, the language is written without vowels. "Chalav" is milk; "chelev" is fat. So by adding in the phrase "mother's" we know it's talking about cooking it in milk, not fat.

We believe that an Oral Tradition was given along with the Bible as we know it, which meant that this verse was intended as:

Don't cook the meat of any ruminant animal in the milk of any ruminant animal.

The verse appears thrice in the Torah, giving us: don't cook it, don't eat it if it was cooked, and don't sell it if it was cooked.

In fact you'd only violate the direct Torah prohibition if it was cooked with milk; if you took a cold hamburger and soaked it in milk for an hour, that isn't in the prohibition. Centuries later, the rabbis of the Talmud added a prohibition of their own, knowing that if you okayed people to eat such a hamburger, it's likely they'll reheat it - thus getting to a Torah prohibition.

That pertains as the legal definition. As for the ethical message, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that meat is taking, and milk is giving. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook suggests going back to the simple reading of the verse -- once you kill an animal, its mother's milk has no use. To then take that milk and use it to make the meat extra-tasty is too blatant of a disrespect for animal life.

verbs - Do viruses あります or います?

Do viruses あります or います?

Currently, I'm under the impression that animals and humans use います (though see this question), while plants and inanimate objects use あります. Do viruses fall under the latter category?

Answer

I personally think both existing answers should be sufficient for this question, but since they cannot seem to gather consensus, allow me to give it my own try:

The short answer is that both いる and ある forms can be used in a scientific (biological) context. Simple as that.

1. 
   

   A quick poll of available colleagues gave out that some preferred いる, some preferred ある, but neither form was particularly shocking to their ears.

   
   



2. 
   

   Google Scholar gives 16 papers with いる and 70 with ある. There is clearly a preference for the latter, but not so significant that the former could be considered improper.

   
   


3. 
   

   There is just no way to derive a logical/grammatical (prescriptivist) rule as to which form should be used, considering there is no universal biological consensus as to whether viruses are "alive" (and even less so as to whether they are "animate" or "inanimate" objects). The best you will ever get is a descriptivist rule based on usage.

   
   

meaning - What does 「など」 mean in this context?

I have been translating articles from NHK News Easy for practice, and I've noticed they sometimes use 「など」in a way I'm not familiar with. For example, in an article about a train that's about to be decommissioned because of its age, this sentence occurs:

このためＪＲ西日本などは、トワイライトエクスプレスの運転を来年の春にやめることにしました。

I don't really understand the meaning of 「ＪＲ西日本など」, since my grammar resources explain the meaning of the suffix など as "non-exhaustive listing, like "etc.". So, does this mean that "JR West Japan and others" decided to retire the train?

Answer

Yes, this "など" simply means "and others."

According to Wikipedia, トワイライトエクスプレス is operated not only by JR西日本, but also by 2 other companies (JR東日本 and JR北海道).

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%88%E3%83%AF%E3%82%A4%E3%83%A9%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88%E3%82%A8%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%82%B9

talmud gemara - Tosfos vs Tosfos HaRosh

I have noticed that the Tosfos HaRosh very often parallels the Tosfos on the page. Sometimes he presents almost identical information in a slightly different way, but very often he seems to be saying the same thing.

What is the relationship between the Tosfos on the page and the Tosfos HaRosh? Was the Rosh a Tosafist? Did he see the Tosfos that we have on the page?