Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 013

Thursday, October 8 1998

• Tying Techeles
• Re: mesorah -eating turkey and chagavim
• Re: Avodah V2 #12 V'nakeh etc.
• Re: Avodah V2 #12 Teccheile & Mesorah
• Mesorah:Leaping to Conclusions
• revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: Mesorah:Leaping to Conclusions
• inappropriate statement
• mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• Re: mesorah-Multivariate analysis
• atem kruim adam
• RE: Panim Hadashot (yes, more) and public policy

I am in the agonizing throes of change in this regard. At first I went
with the default supplied by the Amuta myself, which was due to:

a) That was the most available format at the time, so I assumed that was
the way to go (Ra'abd).

b) Ignorance on my part.

Now that I see that the overwhelming number of Rishonim (Rashi in Shas,
RT, ROSH, Yerei'im) to name a few, and the GRAZ, Aruch HaShulchan and MB
all seem to say two & two, I'm intending to switch over to that approach.

YGB


> From: rturkel@cas.org (Rick Turkel)

> 	At this point I'd like to pose a question to Rabbi Bechhofer and
> anyone else who holds by the Murex tekhelet, namely, exactly how is it
> to be used?  The first set I got several years ago contained only the
> four strings to be used as shamashim, i.e., those that wrap around the
> others between the knots.  When I tied those on my shabbat talit they
> were several inches longer than the other tzitzit on either end.  I
> recently ordered another set via a friend who knows Baruch Sterman (one
> of the principals of Ptil Tekhelet), and that was a complete set which
> came with four white shamashim and four tekkelet strings that are the
> same length as the other eight white ones.  My friend isn't answering
> his email lately, and the email address I have for Baruch Sterman is an
> old one that no longer works.  Can anyone tell me the proper way to tie
> the tekhelet or, failing that, a valid email address for someone who
> can? 
> 
> 	Kol tuv. 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

In a message dated 98-10-07 14:57:19 EDT, you write:

<< 
 I asked Rav Moshe Sternbuch that question. He said that the Yeminite Mesora
is not
 reliable in this issue and thus can not be utilized. I asked a Yeminite
friend who
 confirmed Rav Sternbuch view. He said the mesora is considered strong enough
that
 Yeminites don't criticize those who eat grasshoppers but that those who are
more
 knowledgable about halachic do not rely on it.
 
                                               Daniel Eidensohn
  >>
Quite a tantalizing paragraph.  What exactly defines the 'strength' of a
mesora and why would the "knowledgable about halachic" be the differentiator?
Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

     Dear List,
        As I said, "never mind", therfore I'd like to wahs my hands of this 
     becho minei demenaki...<smile>
     
     Moadim Lesimcho
     Richard Wolpoe

     re: Techeiles & Mesorah
     
     I am new to this list so I don't know if this has been discussed 
     before.  I really enjoyed the process of isolating the Techeilis.  
     however, without a mesorah what are the halachic implications.  for 
     example, can we reinstitute the kashrus of chagovim based upon 
     laboratory analysis?  To me pure reasons says yes.  We can identify 
     those insects who fall under that category.  however, can we overturn 
     the halacho/minhog based upon pure reason?  I would say that we KANT 
     follow pure reason to decide Halocho... <SMILE>
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe

Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:

> Interesting that he should be malshin Rav Kapach like that. I spoke to Rav Kapach about
> this years ago and he said that he remembers eating chagavim and would do so today as
> well. He is in most circles considered an ish neeman.

I am not sure why you concluded that Rav Sternbuch is criticizing Rav Kapach. I did not ask
him about Rav Kapach! Perhaps you read the latter half of my reply as coming from Rav
Sternbuch - when it was my Yeminite friend who said "that those who are knowledgeable about
halacha do not rely on it". If you feel  it is important I will ask my friend if he meant
to criticize Rav Kapach? :-)

> > I asked Rav Moshe Sternbuch that question. He said that the Yeminite Mesora is not
> > reliable in this issue and thus can not be utilized. I asked a Yeminite friend who
> > confirmed Rav Sternbuch view. He said the mesora is considered strong enough that
> > Yeminites don't criticize those who eat grasshoppers but that those who are more
> > knowledgable about halachic do not rely on it.

                                                     Daniel Eidensohn

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

>>>
I think your new version of the Dor Revi'i is correct. In fact, contrary to
the
main point of the Dor Revi'i - you are proposing that Rebbe did not need
to have
written down the Mishna. You have changed the Dor Revi'i's position  -
that the
_writing_ down by Rebbe caused the authority of the Mishna to  - that
the setting
in movement of the process that ultimately led to the writing down of the
Mishna
was the basis of its authority. That would mean that you are essential
transforming the Dor Revi'i into the Kesef Mishna and  Rav Elchonon
and/or the
Chazon Ish's position. That is great but would the Dor Revi'i appreciate
your
tampering with - or  rather destroying the foundation of his whole thesis?

<<<

I am glad that our substantive positions seem to be converging, but you
seem to overlook that what I wrote was contingent on the im timtzi lomar
that Rebi did not produce a written version of the Mishnah, which can be
argued either way.  Certainly it was not unreasonable for the Dor Revi'i
to take as his premise that Rebi did in fact produce a written version.
However, I don't think that that factual question is critical to his position,
because the creation of a written version of the Mishnah was not a
discrete event, but a process -- a process that involved not just Rebi a
very large number of the sages of his generation.  The Dor Revi'i's point
is that the agreement not to dispute opinions recorded in the Mishnah
was inherent in the decision to create a fixed canonical text of the
Mishnah, and that that is why the process of creating that text (which
necessarily preceded writing it down) was understood at the time to
have been such a momentous event ("eit la'asot . . .").  As to whether
the Dor Revi'i would appreciate the whole foundation of his thesis being
tampered with or destroyed, see the quotation from his hakdamah (5a-b)
on pp. 50-51 of my Tradition (32:1) article.

<<<
We can thus say according to your revised theory that there was
acceptance of the Mishna
because of the recognition of the greatness and superiority of the Rebbe
and his
beis din. Thus the Chazon Ish. 
>>>

Not exactly.  Rebi is undoubtedly viewed by Chazal as a unique figure. 
There were probably few others whose inherent superiority and
leadership were so universally acknowledged in their own generation. 
Only a figure such as he could have created the consensus without
which "nullification" of the Torah would have been possible or
acceptable.  Any theory of the authority of the Mishnah must be based
on Rebi's unique preeminence.

<<<
Or alternatively it was accepted because of the
consensus of the scholars at that time for the need for such an
authoritative
compilation  - which is the Kesef Mishna and Rav Elchonon.
>>>

This is not an alternative, because the consensus reflected Rebi's
universally acknowledged preeminence.

<<<
 The Dor Revi'i takes
pains to distance himself from the Kesef Mishna. His point is that the
radical
move of turning the Oral Torah into a written document by Rebbe himself
created
the authority of the Mishna. 
>>>

The Dor Revi'i distances himself rhetorically only from the imprecise
formulation of the Keseph Mishnah that there was an acceptance by
later generations not to argue with Tannaitic opinions expressed in the
Mishnah.  "And we do not need the forced interpretation of the Keseph
Mishnah that perhaps at the time of the of the sealing of the Mishnah and
the sealing of the Talmud they accepted on themselves that a
subsequent generation would not come to differ, for the acceptence not
to differ on what was fixed in writing and bounded by the "rishonim"
rests in the writing itself.  [But remember that the canonical text had to be
created before it could be written.]  And they called this [writing]
uprooting the Torah and compared writing down halachot to burning the
Torah because of the momentous result that followed that the right of the
sages of each generation to interpret the Torah was taken away." 
(hakdamah 3b)  The Dor Revi'i is thus simply clarifying the nature of the
acceptance posited by the Keseph Mishnah.

<<<
Or perhaps you mean to preserve the Dor Revi'is
point but now extend it into the future - that it was not actually
authoritative
till it was actually written down - which means that Amoraim could freely
disagree with it until the precise moment the ink hit the parchment!?
>>>

You seem to assume that the Mishnah as we now know it actually
existed, before it was finally written down.  But the canonical text that
now exists came into being only for the purpose of being written down. 
Otherwise the Mishnayot would have remained more or less in the form
of the many scattered beraitot quoted in the Talmud that were never
compiled into an official edition.  It is not writing per se that was the
problem because we know as the Rambam observes that non-circulating
editions of Torah she'bal peh were extant long before Rebi.  But it was
forbidden to teach from a written text, so the texts had no authority.

<<<
In sum, after your revision  - what was the chidush of the Dor Revi'i? 
>>>

There were many.  Perhaps the most important comes at the end of the
passage I just quoted.  The purpose of a separate Oral Torah was to
allow continuous development of and, when necessary through new
drashot or adoption of previously rejected ones ("eilu v'eilu . . ."), change
in the halachah by the Sanhedrin.  Otherwise, the Ribbono shel Olam
could have just attached an expanded version of the Shulchan Aruch as
a written appendix to sefer Devarim.

<<<I apologize for any perceived slight of the Dor Revi'i but I really don't
see how
your interpretation of his amazement at Rashi is more correct than mine.
>>>

The slight was to suggest that Dor Revi'i was amazed that Rashi would
have held an opinion different from his own.  That implies a kind of
megalomania that is really quite unbecoming.  V'dan et kol ha-adam l'kaf
z'chut requires you to assume that the Dor Revi'i was amazed that Rashi
seemed to hold an opinion that differed from what was then and remains
the conventional wisdom that Rebi "wrote" (in some appropriate sense)
the Mishnah.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote.
It was your statement, in the name of Rav Sternbuch, "that the Yemenite Mesora is not reliable
in this issue" that I took umbrage with. There are two possibilities. Either Rav Sternbach is
not aware that Rav Kapach is a repository of this mesorah. This is a define possibility and  in
which case he should be informed. Or he was critical of Rav Kapach, the possibility that I
first, possibly erroneously, assumed.  I hope I was mistaken.

Given the implications of your original post, it would seem that Rav Sternbuch would permit an
ashkenazi to eat chagavim given a reliable mesorah. If he would be willing to accept Rav
Kapach's mesorah that opens up an interesting can of worms ;)


Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:
>
> > Interesting that he should be malshin Rav Kapach like that. I spoke to Rav Kapach about
> > this years ago and he said that he remembers eating chagavim and would do so today as
> > well. He is in most circles considered an ish neeman.
>
> I am not sure why you concluded that Rav Sternbuch is criticizing Rav Kapach. I did not ask
> him about Rav Kapach! Perhaps you read the latter half of my reply as coming from Rav
> Sternbuch - when it was my Yeminite friend who said "that those who are knowledgeable about
> halacha do not rely on it". If you feel  it is important I will ask my friend if he meant
> to criticize Rav Kapach? :-)
>
> > > I asked Rav Moshe Sternbuch that question. He said that the Yeminite Mesora is not
> > > reliable in this issue and thus can not be utilized. I asked a Yeminite friend who
> > > confirmed Rav Sternbuch view. He said the mesora is considered strong enough that
> > > Yeminites don't criticize those who eat grasshoppers but that those who are more
> > > knowledgable about halachic do not rely on it.
>
>                                                      Daniel Eidensohn

Shraga Rothbart wrote:

<<<
Without commenting on the obvious inappropriate statement of "my least
favorite drasaha" (on the same level as saying that that is my least
favorite posuk in Chumash)  the Gem. in Yevamos 61a which is the
source
of this drasha asks this question. 
>>>

Thank you (and others) for the reference to the gemara in Yevamot.  I am
sorry that you found my choice of words in referring to the drasha in
question  inappropriate (a term which now seems to cover quite a
multitude of sins).  But I am afraid that I must also plead guilty to having
least favorite p'sukim in Chumash as well.  I generally try to avoid
mention of the p'sukim mandating genocide of the Canaanites, Hittites,
Emorites, et al.  I also think that we should narrow the application of the
injunction lo yavo mamzer b'kahal hashem to the maximum extent
possible.  And as I recall R. Akiva and R. Tarfon state that if they had
been judges when the death penalty was still in force, no one would
ever have been executed.  Chazal apparently were also uncomfortable
enough with the p'sukim of ben sorer u'moreh that they interpreted them
in a way that made it impossible that the prescribed punishment ever did
or would actually be applied.

Concerning the "appropriate" interpretation of the drasha in Yevamot, I
would make two observations.  First, the version in the gemara actually
reads "v'lo ovdei kochavim k'ruim adam."  If we take that  version
seriously, then the anti-humanistic implications of the drasha are
considerably limited.  But the Ramban in the Mikraot Gedolot quotes the
drasha as referring to umot ha'olam.  Second, aside from the Tosafot
who seem to be disturbed by the implications of the drasha, the Mahartz
Chajes in his comments printed in the back of the Vilna shas makes an
interesting and somewhat persuasive attempt to reconcile the drasha
with a more humanistic outlook. 

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> <<
>  I asked a Yeminite friend who  confirmed Rav Sternbuch view. He said the
> mesora is considered strong enough that  Yeminites don't criticize those who
> eat grasshoppers but that those who are
> more  knowledgable about halachic do not rely on it.
>
> Quite a tantalizing paragraph.  What exactly defines the 'strength' of a
> mesora and why would the "knowledgable about halachic" be the differentiator?

Your comment - reminded me of a critical detail. Rav Sternbuch stated that the
difference between the Yeminite mesora and the rest of the world is the identity
of  the links  - the receivers and transmitters of the mesora. He noted that as a
general fact of history - theYeminites did not have major talmidei chachomim in
each generation who were the actual  transmitters of this mesora. The Yemities as
a people were the actual transmitters. My understanding is that he viewed the
historic Yeminite mesora as a folk tradition. One that was fiercely guarded - but
because there is not an identifiable chain of Torah scholars - we  - non
Yeminite's can not utilize it. He feels that only a talmid chachom can be relied
upon to correctly identify the salient characteristics. I assume it would be the
same concerning a tradition that was transmitted basically by mother to daughter.
Would a posek rely on that information concerning something involving a major
issur? Sometimes. This understanding was reinforced by my Yeminite friend who
stated that within his community - the mesora on grasshoppers does exist. But
that the more knowledgeable do not rely on it.

There are two examples in the Igros Moshe. 1) He notes (YD I 34  page 52)
concerning the mesora on birds. A Town that does not have a mesora - can rely on
an adjoining town that does have a mesora (Shach 82 11). But that is only if they
don't have a negative mesora not to rely on the other's town's mesora. Rav Moshe
introduces a number of factors which Poskim can legitimately argue as to what
constitutes a usable mesora.  2) He also notes that the Gra lit his Chanuka
Menora at a time we would consider it still Shabbos. This practice was
transmitted to his talmidim - but Rav Moshe says - the talmidim can not transmit
this leniency to the next generation since it is a minority view. He learns this
from Pesachim 51a that a student of Rabbi Yochanon could rely on Rabbi Yochanon's
unique psak for himself but could not transmit it to his son.

In sum. Mesoras have a multitude of components and depending upon your halachic
principles this will strengthen or weaken the value of a particular  Mesora. Two
talmidei chachomim can legitimately disagree as to whether a particular mesora
should be relied upon. This might also explain the debate about Kapores before
Yom Kippur.

                                             Daniel Eidensohn

What about:

"Puk chazei mai *ama* dabar."

or

"Hanach laham *l'Yisroel.* Im einam nevi'im hem, bnei nevi'im hem."?

or

R' Nosson Adler's conversion to Teimani or Sephardic pronunciation?

Furthermore, my suspicion is that the Teimanim did have "sheine talmidei
chachomim" (if we can apply a Yiddishism to Teimanim).  Perhaps R'
Sternbuch does not find them so by his criteria, but I wonder if he has
done rigorous historical analysis.

I thank R' Ari Z for the good example of Chagavim of something on which we
have a negative mesora, and think it fits my perspective well!

YGB
 

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> Your comment - reminded me of a critical detail. Rav Sternbuch stated
> that the difference between the Yeminite mesora and the rest of the
> world is the identity of the links - the receivers and transmitters of
> the mesora. He noted that as a general fact of history - theYeminites
> did not have major talmidei chachomim in each generation who were the
> actual transmitters of this mesora. The Yemities as a people were the
> actual transmitters. My understanding is that he viewed the historic
> Yeminite mesora as a folk tradition. One that was fiercely guarded - but
> because there is not an identifiable chain of Torah scholars - we - non
> Yeminite's can not utilize it. He feels that only a talmid chachom can
> be relied upon to correctly identify the salient characteristics. I
> assume it would be the same concerning a tradition that was transmitted
> basically by mother to daughter.  Would a posek rely on that information
> concerning something involving a major issur? Sometimes. This
> understanding was reinforced by my Yeminite friend who stated that
> within his community - the mesora on grasshoppers does exist. But that
> the more knowledgeable do not rely on it. 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer wrote:

> What about:
>
> "Puk chazei mai *ama* dabar."
>
> "Hanach laham *l'Yisroel.* Im einam nevi'im hem, bnei nevi'im hem."?
>

There is a major difference when dealing with a fait acompli - i.e.,
justifying the current practice and the standard of evidence used to change
it. A Yeminite posek might apply the priniciples you cited above to justify
that which is already in his community - especially if he felt it would be
harmful to fight against it. On the other hand, a rav wanting to include a new
practice e.g., based on Kabbala or from a different community would have be
much more restrictive. Similarly an individual wanting to adopt a new practice
such as Rabbeinu Tam or the Gra for himself - would not be held to the same
standard as a Rav - deciding for his community.

>
> Furthermore, my suspicion is that the Teimanim did have "sheine talmidei
> chachomim" (if we can apply a Yiddishism to Teimanim).  Perhaps R'
> Sternbuch does not find them so by his criteria, but I wonder if he has
> done rigorous historical analysis.

What are your suspicions based upon? I'd also like to know why you assume the
necessity for a rigorous historical analysis. - As you are well aware it is
not common practice in the literature.  A psak based on "rov poskim" rarely
describes how this was determined. When the gemora says the majority of the
tzibor can't handle the takana - there is no rigorous survey with random
samples from repesentative groups. Most poskim - do not do a computer search
before making decisions. A simple example - Rav Moshe {O.H.IV 75.1  p145)
discusses taking a cold shower on Shabbos and  why it is not done in America.
He can not determine whether it was because of ignorance that it is permitted
or perhaps there is a negative mesora. I don't think he was concerned with
rigrorous historical analysis. How do you know when there is a complete
absence of discussion in the literature and no one thinks to ask whether we
are dealing with a negative mesora or just inertia? Furthermore how much
research does a Rav have to do before he poskens?

In sum, why are holding Rav Sternbuch to a non existing standard? The rule is
that the one who wants to change has the burden of proof. If there was a
urgent need for a hetair to eat grasshoppers, I am sure the issue would be
handled differently. When I - obviously not interested in actually eating the
grasshoppers - ask a distinguished talmid chachom whether the presumed status
quo can be changed - he will take a conservative approach. BTW he did not
indicate there was a negative mesora concerning grasshoppers

                          Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 98-10-08 05:22:49 EDT, you write:

<< 
 In sum, why are holding Rav Sternbuch to a non existing standard? The rule is
 that the one who wants to change has the burden of proof. If there was a
 urgent need for a hetair to eat grasshoppers, I am sure the issue would be
 handled differently. When I - obviously not interested in actually eating the
 grasshoppers - ask a distinguished talmid chachom whether the presumed status
 quo can be changed - he will take a conservative approach. BTW he did not
 indicate there was a negative mesora concerning grasshoppers
 
                           Daniel Eidensohn
  >>
My original question was why those Temanim with a mesora but "knowledgable in
halacha" would not accept the mesora so I think the question still stands.  In
a way this might be tied to those who don't eat in the sukkah on shmini
atzeret due to mesora without a strong halachic basis(I don't mean any slight
whatsoever or to open old wounds).

moadim lsimcha
Joel Rich

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

> > "Puk chazei mai *ama* dabar."
> >
> > "Hanach laham *l'Yisroel.* Im einam nevi'im hem, bnei nevi'im hem."?
> >
> 
> There is a major difference when dealing with a fait acompli - i.e.,
> justifying the current practice and the standard of evidence used to change
> it. A Yeminite posek might apply the priniciples you cited above to justify

The Gemara uses these principles to *set* policy, not just confirm it, see
Berachos 55 and Pesachim 66.

> > Furthermore, my suspicion is that the Teimanim did have "sheine
> talmidei > chachomim" (if we can apply a Yiddishism to Teimanim). 
> Perhaps R' > Sternbuch does not find them so by his criteria, but I
> wonder if he has > done rigorous historical analysis. 
> 
> What are your suspicions based upon? I'd also like to know why you

The fact that there is an unbroken chain of yerei'im u'sheleimim
m'dakdekim b'kalla k'ba'chamura from Yemen stretching back, we suspect, to
Bayis Rishon (although not confirmed).

> assume the necessity for a rigorous historical analysis. - As you are
> well aware it is not common practice in the literature.  A psak based on

But why assume that a community of yerei'im u'sheleimim had *no*
significant rabbinic leadership. I would wager that one would never assume
that about communities in Eastern Europe.

Even perusal of such a secular source as the Enc. Judaica indicates that
there was scholarship in Teiman, and I would also wager that consulting a
Teimani who knows his heritage well would reveal more of the same.

(The truth is that I suffer from a "Lithno-centric" view of Judaism as
much as, I suspect, most of us in this group, but that is precisely what
makes me wary of casting aspersions on others without adequate basis.)

> "rov poskim" rarely describes how this was determined. When the gemora
> rigrorous historical analysis. How do you know when there is a complete
> absence of discussion in the literature and no one thinks to ask whether
> we are dealing with a negative mesora or just inertia? Furthermore how
> much research does a Rav have to do before he poskens? 
>

This is very different, as Chagavim is an issue, like much of kashrus, in
which mesorah is the basis of the discussion.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Some further thoughts about the drasha atem kruim adam v'lo ovdei
kochavim kruim adam.  If you look at the sugya beginning at the bottom of
Yevamot 60b, you will find that this drasha is advanced by R. Shimon b.
Yochai to support his position that the corpses of (idolatrous?)
non-Jews are not ritually impure.  [By the way, Rashi specifically
comments that the residents of Ninveh were idolators, so his text
obviously read ovdei kochavim, not umot ha-olam.  Moreover the
repentance of the residents of Ninveh seems not to have extended
beyond renunciation of their injustice and evil actions toward their fellow
men.  The text does not say, as best as I can recall without checking,
that they became monotheists.]

The derivation is from a verse in Ezekiel (34?) which I can't remember
just now.  His drasha and his halachic position are immediately disputed
by the Chachamim (I'm not sure if this is part of the beraita itself or the
gemara's reconstruction of the machloket) who cite not only the verse in
Jonah but a verse in Bamidbar concerning the number of humans
captured (nefesh adam) in the war against Midian following the Ba'al P'or
incident.  R. Shimon responds by saying that since the verses cited
contain references to cattle (beheimah) the scripture uses the elevated
term adam to accentuate the difference between adam and beheima. 
But otherwise, according to R. Shimon, a simple reference to adam must
be understood as specific to Jews.  Unconvinced, the Chachamim
continue to press their attach on R. Shimon and cite the very case of the
war against Midian when the soldiers who went to battle were required
to undergo  ritual purification lasting to seven days to remove the ritual
impurity of having come into contact with non-Jewish corpses.  R.
Shimon responds that they might have come into contact with Jewish
corpses,  The Chachamim reject that because the battle was milhemet
mitzvah so no Jews should have fallen in battle.  R. Shimon says that if
they had sinned, even Jews fighting in milhemet mitzvah might have
fallen, so that it was possible that the returning soldiers had been ritually
defiled.

There the matter rested for perhaps two or three centuries.  The
halachah must have followed the opinion of the Chachamim who reject
the drasha atem k'ruim adam against the opinion of R. Shimon.  But then
the gemara records the opinion of Ravina, the last of the Amoraim, who
introduces the distinction between tumat ohel and tumat maga to effect
an ex post  reconciliation of the conflicting opinions.  Tumat ohel is
restricted by the verse zot hatorah adam ki yamut ba-ohel to Jews
whereas tumat maga applies without restriction to all humans.  

This provides an interesting footnote to earlier discussions about the
ability of Amoraim to dispute the opinions of Tannaim.  Here Ravina is
creating a brand new halachah by cutting and pasting the diamterically
opposed opinons of R. Shimon and the Chachamim, in the process,
introducing a significant leniency by exempting a person from ritual
defilement when coming under the same roof as a non-Jewish corpse, a
leniency that involves the potential transgression of capital offenses.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On the subject of panim hadashot (which I am sure many are quite tired
of), R. YGB writes:

>There is an issue of public policy here, which can indicate a shev ve'al
>ta'aseh approach.

I agree!  Whether public policy militates in favor of shev ve-al
ta`aseh, however, depends upon whom you ask.  Clearly, R. Sternbuch
feels it does.  On the other hand, Joel Wolowelsky is fond of quoting a
statement of R. Ahron Soloveichik, in which he argues that if we forbid
women from doing that which is permitted, we will surely drive them away
from frumkeit.

Moreover, if you oppose women serving as panim hadashot on policy
grounds, say so!  But don't go around resurrecting rejected Rishonim and
disregarding explicit Aharonim.

>It seems that this is the attitude that prevails, right
>now, in the majority of the Orthodox world.

What prevails right now may be based on ignorance and neglect, rather
than conscious public policy.  Or it may be based on the highhly
questionable formulation of the Sova` Semahot -- who either missed the
Hatam Sofer or chose to omit him.

>I think women's zimmun was a wonderful example.

Thank you, I do too.  But to me, it is an example of a neglected
halakhah that has been revived without the benefit of a gadol be-hora'ah
or an explicit "mesorah," whether from Frankfurt, Pressburg or anywhere
else.  What do you think it is an example of?

>I think we might find a
>parallel in the "Minhag Yisroel" not to use any means of amplification -
>not even transistor microphones, or electronics - even solid state radios
> - - on Shabbos or Yom Tov.

Sorry, I don't see the parallel.  Zimmun and sheva berakhot are
objective halakhic kiyyumim/hiyyuvim.  I am not aware of any halakhic
value in using the devices you mention.

Mo'adim le-simhah,

Eli Clark

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]