Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 025

Monday, October 19 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #24
• Re: Avodah V2 #24
• Re: sun & moon fighting
• Re: more on sun and moon
• Re: angelic bechira
• Bereishis 3:22
• Re: angelic bechira
• [none]
• [none]
• [none]
• Angelic bechirah
• Re: Angelic bechirah
• angelic questions
• Re: angelic questions
• Re: tum'a issues
• RE: Hatam Sofer on sevara/responding to early Reform
• RE: Hatam Sofer on sevara/responding to early Reform
• Yerushalmi vs Bavli
• Re:Shulchan Aruch & Truth
• Re: misc.
• Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown

I hate to be such a stickler - but l'mai nafka minah if angels have bechira or
how many of them can dance on the head of a pin? 

-CB

Nafka mina l'havanas ha'beri'ah ve'chochmas Hashem Yisborach.

Ever read the first Sha'ar of Nefesh HaChaim? L'mai nafka mina?

On Sun, 18 Oct 1998 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> I hate to be such a stickler - but l'mai nafka minah if angels have bechira or
> how many of them can dance on the head of a pin? 
> 
> -CB
> 

YGB

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

About the fight between the sun and the moon, I can not answer whether there
was bechira, although the very discussion seems to indicate that there was.
What I would like to address is the very story itself.  The story appears in
Maseches Chullin ( 60: ) where the final line of the g'mara is not at all the
same as Rashi's on Chumash.  Rashi says that the moon was lessened because of
its complaint.  The g'mara states that HaShem told the moon that if it did not
think that 2 could share the same crown, then the moon should lessen itself.
The lessening was NOT a punishment from HaShem, but a submission by the moon
to its own argument.

Maharsha sees in this a reference to KlalYisrael who accepted upon themselves
a lessened state in this world ( ki atem ha-me'at ), in order to gain a
greater share in Olam HaBa.

Rather than seeing the story as a negative, the g'mara sees it as an
inspiration to us to persevere through our suffering, for our reward for
keeping the Torah will pay off in the end.

Eliyahu Teitz

One other point about the medrash of the "fight" between the sun and moon.  I
do not think that the story has to be taken literally at all.  Sh'ney ha-
m'oros ha-g'dolim does not have to mean two identically sizes orbs, it could
also mean the two greater spheres, one being larger than the other, but both
still the dominant ones during their respective hours of dominion.

The medrash is obviously trying to address the textual difficulty when one
assumes that they are of identical size, and answers with a lesson for us to
learn.  But the textual difficulty can be answered through p'shat without
reliance on the medrash.  That being the case, there is no need to assume an
actual fight between inanimate objects, or the angels who control them.

Eliyahi Teitz

RYGB writes as proof of bechira:

<< 
 1. The episode at the end of this week's parasha: "Va'yovo'u Bnei Elokim
 al bnos ha'adam."
 
 2. The sin of those sent to destroy Sdom: "Ki mash'chisim *anachnu* es
 ha'ir."
>>

The first is hardly a proof, as many m'farshim see the term as b'ney elohim,
not refering to angels but to humans, children of the leaders ( judges ) of
their time.

On the second proof, I saw only one opinion in one medrash cited by Rav Kasher
who attributes ga'ava to the angels.  The other opinoins say that the angels
revealed secrets that should have remained private.

Aside from this, a more fundamental issue:  perhaps the angels have no choice
but to do what HaShem has commanded them.  Does this mean that they have no
choice in how to lead the rest of their existence when they are not bound in
duty to HaShem?  

This still does not answer how the trees seem to have disobeyed a direct
command from HaShem in how they should have come to be formed.  On that I have
a few comments as well.  First, the earth could not on its own sprout forth
trees.  Of all of ma'aseh B'raishis, this is the only creation that does not
have HaShem directly involved in the actual formation of the objects being
created.  One could argue that therefore HaShem did not have direct
involvement, but gave it off to others to do.  The obvious question is why?
Second, HaShem gives His stamp of approval to the way things actually came
out, as it says "va-yaar Elokim ki tov".  If HaShem had wanted a different
outcome, why say ki tov?  Finally, there are midrashim, cited by Rav Kasher
that say that creation did fulfill HaShem's desires, but that things changed
after Adam & Chava's sin.

Eliyahu Teitz

Odeh ve'lo evosh: For 20 years I have been doing Chumash Rashi and have
never noticed how Rashi interprets this pasuk. According to Rashi, the
pasuk is saying:

And G-d said: Behold Man is unique in the lower worlds just as I am unique
in the higher worlds [My uniqueness is that I am the L-rd]. His uniqueness
is that he knows good and evil.

Thus Rashi deftly avoids the very good question, how can G-d be called a
"yodei'a tov va'ra."

See the Malbim there for an extraordinary peshat!!!

YGB

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

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> The first is hardly a proof, as many m'farshim see the term as b'ney
> elohim, not refering to angels but to humans, children of the leaders (
> judges ) of their time. 
> 

But, according to Rashi in Yuma 67b, the Gemara itself ascribes this
incident to Malachim. I believe the Ramban on the Sa'ir la'Azazel saya the
same thing. Is this the only pshat? No, of course not. 70 Panim la'Torah.
But it is evidence that there is a legitimate school of thought in Chazal
and Rishonim that Malachim sin.

> On the second proof, I saw only one opinion in one medrash cited by Rav
> Kasher who attributes ga'ava to the angels.  The other opinoins say that
> the angels revealed secrets that should have remained private. 
> 

Again, rashi iin chumash 22:4-5 ascribes to them the sin of Ga'ava. The
Meshech Chochmo there has a different sin to ascribe to them, for which R'
Copperman brings evidence from a Medrash. Same ideas as above.


YGB

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

subject: repetition of learning

    A recent daf yomi sugya reminded me of a long standing question I have had.
Any help would be appreciated.

    The Gemara discusses a disagreement between Rav Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
The Gemara attempts to find the point of the disagreement. After the first
suggestion the Gemara rejects it on the grounds that we already know this
point from a different disagreement. The Gemara continues this again with
a second point until it comes to a third possibility which we didn't previously
know.
    There are many similar Gemaras where the Gemara asks why Rav (for example)
made some statement when we already know his viewpoint from some other statement.

    What bothers me is the concept that these Amoraim never repeated themselves.
In particular we know that Rav Yochanan lead a long life and had several
generations of students. I find it hard to believe that he never repeated himself
or any idea. Thus, a student who joined the shiur after 20 years that Rav
Yochanan had been tecahing would never hear any teaching that gave the same 
point as some previously taught idea. Similarly, if Resh Lakish heard a
halacha with which he disagreed he would not mention it in the shiur if he
has already disagreed on the same point 20 years earlier on a different
issue but with the same underlying principle. Would it be up to all the students
to find out the previous disagreement and realize that the same principals
would apply to the new situation?

Subject: Authorship of the Mishnah

Jonathan Baker writes

>> a sugya on Meg. 30a (mid) which seems to indicate pretty clearly that 
>> Rebbe authored the Mishnah in accordance with his own opinions.

That does not mean that the the other Tanaim of his generation did not
go along with the psak of Rebbe. In fact we have many mishnayot where
Rebbe's opinion is mentioned as one of several. Obviously the Mishna
did not always pasken like Rebbe.

>> Another counterpoint to R' Turkel's Rashi: if the Sanhedrin's power to 
>> resolve machlokot ceased with the departure from the Lishkat haGazit, in
>> what sense is the Mishnah done as a "psak of the Sanhedrin"?
>> They had no power to pasken in a universally acceptable way at the time 
>> of Rebbe, 150 years later.

Rambam states explicitly that the Gemara is binding because all the
Gedolim of that generation accepted it (I am not sure if he means that
there was an actual physical gathering that accepted the gemara as
authoritative). Hence, I don't agree with the statement that the Sanhedrin's
authority and universality stopped at the destruction of the Temple
(or perhaps earlier when they left the Lishkat haGazit).
We know of decrees from the Sanhedrin of Usha, Rebbe and his grandson
Rabbi Yehuda Nesiah.

Eli Turkel

subject: Shulchan Aruch & Truth

Daniel Eidensohn asks

>> I have not found any source prior to the Beis Yosef who says that he is
>> not going to even try to answer the many profound questions raised but
>> instead will use a mechanical strategy of determining halacha l'maaseh.
>> I would appreciate any source that says the purely mechanical approach
>> is considered Hora'ah or Truth.

Aren't the rules that we pasken like Rabbi Akiva or Rebbe.
Rav Yochanan against Resh Lakish, according to Rav and Shmuel depending 
on issurim or monetary matters, Rava against Abaye all manisfetations of 
a mechanical approach rather than seeking out the truth. i.e. the Gemara 
is stating that it can't decide the truth between previous generations
and so rules will substitute. Even the rules when we follow the
later generations or when we follow the early generations are
somewhat arbitrary. Though they can be justified on the "truth" level
they make more sense as guidelines rather than as absolute truths.

On a more contemporary level Rav Eliyashiv is quoted as stating that
Litvaks have to pasken according to the Schach while Jews from
Polish heritage have to pasken like the Taz. I don't think other
gedolim like Rav Moshe or Rav Soloveitchik took that mechanical a viewpoint.

Eli Turkel

According to the Rambam, mal'achim lack bechirah even in potentia. He defines
angel as the force by which natural processes occur (Morah 2:6).

The Rambam draws from Aristotiliean physics. Aristotle taught that
intelligences impart impetus to objects that then move until that impetus
is exhausted. (As opposed to positing a constant mmomentum that friction
converts into heat.) Therefore, he had to have intellects associated with
natural processes, as there is no other way an action can begin.

Therefore, one angel is by definition the force behind a single job, and that
if two jobs are performed, requiring two forces, then (again, by definition),
two mal'achim are involved.

As opposed to this opinion, the Or Samei'ach (Hil Teshuvah, "HaKol Tzafui
viHarishus Nesunah") asserts that mal'achim have bechirah chofshi in potentia,
however, since they are always exposed to Kavod Hashem, what choices are
there to make?

I think R' YGB assumed the Or Samei'ach's position when he suggested that
mal'achim might disobey HKBH when "down" here.


About the two medrashim quoted: 1- eitz oseh p'ri, and 2- me'or hakatan,
why are we assuming historicity? Medrashim do not come with assertions
of historical accuracy.

I quote interpretations of each in Aspaqlaria.

Eitz oseh p'ri is analyzed by R' Kook. He interprets "eitz" as means, "p'ri"
as goal, and makes the medrash out to be an explanation of chol, and how the
word really refers to the soul's inability to feel satisfaction in the physical
means G-d gave us to serve Him. (see http://www.aishdas.org/asp/succos59.html
to see how I used this idea as the basis of a Hirschian-like symbolism for
the esrog. R' Kook would not have been amused.)

The Maharashah addresses me'or hakatan, making it a statement about the
relative positions of Eisav (sun), and Yaakov (us). I present the idea with
liberal extensions of my own in http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pimchas.html.

In both cases, the interpretation is that what G-d ordered represents the
ideal, and what actually occurred was a necessary step backwards to allow
this world to serve as an arena for bechirah chafshi -- to get man to work
toward that ideal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5954 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 19-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a candle, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Micha Berger wrote:

> As opposed to this opinion, the Or Samei'ach (Hil Teshuvah, "HaKol
> Tzafui viHarishus Nesunah") asserts that mal'achim have bechirah chofshi
> in potentia, however, since they are always exposed to Kavod Hashem,
> what choices are there to make? 
> 
> I think R' YGB assumed the Or Samei'ach's position when he suggested
> that mal'achim might disobey HKBH when "down" here. 
> 

Thank you for reminding me wherre I saw this approach. I wracked my brains
and several seforim last night, but did not recall that it was, indeed,
the OS that I had seen propose this.

> 
> About the two medrashim quoted: 1- eitz oseh p'ri, and 2- me'or hakatan,
> why are we assuming historicity? Medrashim do not come with assertions
> of historical accuracy. 


Of course, I am not a fan of Midrashic literalism, and certainly do not
assert that the OS's position is pre-eminent in any way. I merely note it
as an interesting, viable and reasonable approach among others, v'shiv'im
panim la'Torah.

YGB

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

     Rav Moshe Feinstein states in Drash Moshe (Parshas vayera I think)
that angels have bcheirah but because of there clear understanding of the
emes of Hashem would never use it.

     In it's introduction to slichos Artscroll discusses this issue.  When
it first came out  Rav Yakov Weinberg came a strong shiur stating that to
say angels had bechira is impossible.  I am sure the tape is available in
the Ner Yisroel tape library.

In a message dated 98-10-19 10:17:18 EDT, you write:

<< 
      Rav Moshe Feinstein states in Drash Moshe (Parshas vayera I think)
 that angels have bcheirah but because of there clear understanding of the
 emes of Hashem would never use it. 

mluchins >>

Interesting since one of the medrashic interpretations of why hashem hardened
pharoh's heart was that seeing hashem's strength etc. would have left him
without true bechira(eg who would ever sin if you knew each time you did a
lightning bolt would immediately hit you etc.)

Kol Tuv
Joel

Eli Turkel wroite in response to Chana Luntz's question:

<< 1. Anything not in contact with water is not "muchshar: to become tameh.
    In particular if one roasts the meat it should not be a problem. >>

Actually, there are seven liquids that can be machshir.  To my recollection,
blood is one of them.  So this might not be a solution.  Of course, this
halacha of hechsher only applies if the food got wet in accordance with the
desire of the owner.  If, however, the owner did not want the food getting
wet, it is not muchshar l'kabel tum'a even if it did get wet with one of the
seven mashkim.

I must apologize to R. YGB for (1) an unintended slight and (2) still
not understanding his interpretation of the Hatam Sofer's statement
about sevara.  My understanding of Hatam Sofer's words is quite
different.

He writes:
>I take umbrage at this - do you think I did not see the teshuva inside?
>Why don't you take a look at it yourself as well.

Halilah.  I was trying to emphasize that David had read it, not that you
had not.  But obviously my intent was unclear.  That my lack of clarity
caused you to take umbrage pains me and I hope you will forgive me.  I
will, moreover, take greater pains in formulating future posts.

>The actual subject of the teshuva, btw, is not Pilpul, but Reform - Aharon
>Choriner et al.
>He notes that all sevaros of Acharonim are unreliable:

>"Sevaros ha'Acharonim einam chazakos ve'kayamos..."

Yes, but he is not referring to Aharonim in the common sense of the
term, as I explain below.

>He notes that a response given without thought is superior to one thought
>out. Ayain sham.

This is actually an explanation of  statement of the Rambam in Perush
ha-Mishnah.

The Hatam Sofer's teshuva is an interesting one, and understanding its
historical context is important in understanding the words.  The teshuva
is from 1819 and was written at the time of a controversy in Hamburg
surrounding a "Temple" which held services on Shabbat only, had omitted
or abbreviated certain tefillot, recited some of pesukei de-zimra in
German, introduced an organ (played by a non-Jew), and removed certain
references to kibbutz galuyot (including a wholesale revision of musaf).
 When these reformers were attacked, they brought in their defense a
collection of 3 teshuvot defending their reforms called Nogah ha-Tzedek.
 The book had been published the previous year by R. Eliezer Lieberman
to defend similar reforms he had introduced in Berlin.  The teshuvot
were written by two Sefardim from Italy (who focus on the permissibility
of the organ) and R. Aaron Chorin of Ofen who justifies a range of
reforms.  (The details are discussed in ShuT. Hatam Sofer 6:84, as well
as Meyer, Response to Modernity, chap. 1.)

The Hamburg municipal authorities were called upon to adjudicate the
dispute and authorized a group of 70 (!) Jews to solicit rabbincal
opinions from around the world.  Hatam Sofer's response appears in 6:84.
In 6:85, he explains, among other things, that he responded immediately
on the basis of the Rambam's explanation of the Mishnah in Avot, that a
hakham eino nivhal le-hashiv.  Rambam explains that a hakham immediately
senses the error of his questioner without contemplation.  According to
Hatam Sofer, the Rambam means that debates can go on endlessly, but that
a hakham's first instinctive response is really the correct one, i.e.,
the original reason, "terem nehelak alenu beriyah."  In this context, he
quotes the statement of Hazal "Anu ke-etzba be-kira li-sevara" [which I
could not find in Ba-Meh Madlikin, only in Eruvin 53a.  But I defer to
those with greater beki'ut in Shas.]   Interestingly, his interpretation
-- that our sevarot can be twisted around like wax -- does not appear to
be the peshat, at least as Rashi understands it.  Indeed, the Gemara
there presents a series of statements comparing the greatness of the
Rishonim to the low level of Aharonim, i.e., nitkatnu ha-dorot, and that
decline is described, among other things, as affecting sevara.  Ayen
sham.

In context, then, the Hatam Sofer is discussing how he responded -- and,
by implication, how one should respond -- to those who ask erroneous
questions, like the early reformers.  Don't get involved in an extended
debate, because they will have an answer to every sevara you think of.
Rather, follow your intuition, as the Rambam writes.  [Note, too, that
some of the reforms involved, such as reciting tefillot in German, had a
reasonable halakhic basis.  The organ, though obviously introduced in
imitation of the goyim, was played by a non-Jew.   In other words,
though not decisive, the reformers were in a position to defend their
practices before the non-Jewish authorities.]  It is interesting to
consider whether this advice  applies to one who wishes to debate with
Reform today.

In sum, I still do not understand how you interpret the Hatam Sofer as
making a statement about the reliability of sevara, whether derived from
the inside or the outside.

>No one deines the important role sevara plays - both in the Gemara and in
>Poskim. The probelem arises when the sevara is introduced from the
>Outside, not derived - purely and totally - from the Inside.

>It was the Outside Sevara - that one's personal interests and agenda
>introduces - regardless of whether it was Pilpul or Brisk - that the CS
>derided.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

>  The book had been published the previous year by R. Eliezer Lieberman
> to defend similar reforms he had introduced in Berlin.  The teshuvot
> were written by two Sefardim from Italy (who focus on the permissibility
> of the organ) and R. Aaron Chorin of Ofen who justifies a range of
> reforms.  (The details are discussed in ShuT. Hatam Sofer 6:84, as well
> as Meyer, Response to Modernity, chap. 1.)
>

Sorry to be a zealot, R' Eli, but "R."?
 
> In 6:85, he explains, among other things, that he responded immediately
> on the basis of the Rambam's explanation of the Mishnah in Avot, that a
> hakham eino nivhal le-hashiv.  Rambam explains that a hakham immediately
> senses the error of his questioner without contemplation.  According to
> Hatam Sofer, the Rambam means that debates can go on endlessly, but that
> a hakham's first instinctive response is really the correct one, i.e.,
> the original reason, "terem nehelak alenu beriyah."  In this context, he
> quotes the statement of Hazal "Anu ke-etzba be-kira li-sevara" [which I
> could not find in Ba-Meh Madlikin, only in Eruvin 53a.  But I defer to
> those with greater beki'ut in Shas.] Interestingly, his interpretation
> -- that our sevarot can be twisted around like wax -- does not appear to
> be the peshat, at least as Rashi understands it.  Indeed, the Gemara
> there presents a series of statements comparing the greatness of the
> Rishonim to the low level of Aharonim, i.e., nitkatnu ha-dorot, and that
> decline is described, among other things, as affecting sevara.  Ayen
> sham. 
> 

The CS, in justifying this, is quoting himself - i.e., how he interprets
the Gemara in Eruvin (I cited Shabbos on the basis of the teshuva and did
not look it up) - and applying this "vort" to the situation. The scope of
the interpretation (which, as you note, is obviously unlike Rshi, but is
true to the words in an alternate translation) is not at all limited by
the usage in this teshuva. Neither, certainly and specifically, is his use
of the term "Acharonim." I am not sure whom you think he means by
Acharonim - Lieberman and Choriner?

The truth is, however, we might as well forget the CS and go back to the
Gemara itself! The Gemara - be it like Rashi or the CS - denigrates the
sevaritic capacity of Amoraim! What conclusions can we draw from that?!

Not, to be sure, that we not use sevara, that is the most essential
component of Torah study! - but that we do so with humility and the
realization that we are wont to err, and worse! 

YGB

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

Interestingly, I came across a parallel discussion in William Chomsky's
popularization "Hebrew: the Eternal Language".

In it he says that Sepharadi pronounciation bears greater resemblence to that
of Bavel, whereas Ashkenazi pronounciation appears to have a more Israeli
heritage.

This implies something about the flow of people and ideas from the era of the
Israel/Bavel split to the Ashkenaz/Sepharad one. (As general trends, not
bifrat.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5954 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 19-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Eli Turkel wrote:

> Daniel Eidensohn asks
>
> >> I have not found any source prior to the Beis Yosef who says that he is
> >> not going to even try to answer the many profound questions raised but
> >> instead will use a mechanical strategy of determining halacha l'maaseh.
> >> I would appreciate any source that says the purely mechanical approach
> >> is considered Hora'ah or Truth.
>
> Aren't the rules that we pasken like Rabbi Akiva or Rebbe.
> Rav Yochanan against Resh Lakish, according to Rav and Shmuel depending
> on issurim or monetary matters, Rava against Abaye all manisfetations of
> a mechanical approach rather than seeking out the truth. i.e. the Gemara
> is stating that it can't decide the truth between previous generations
> and so rules will substitute.

Clallei HaPsak are general guidelines not absolute rules. The Chavas Yair #94
has an extensive discussion of this point. He cites many examples where the
clallei hapsak are not followed. Therefore they are to understood to be stating
the typical victor when there is conflict between specific authorities. They
were apparently established by Rav Ashi based on knowledge of  success record.
When we are unable to find adequate proof to support a particular position we
can rely on these rules.
We can assume that the Rif Rosh and Rambam each attempted to clarify halacha
based upon sevora and proof. If the Beis Yosef had said that after carefully
weighing all the evidence he found that he   typically agreed with the Rambam's
analysis - his reliance in case of uncertainty on the Rambam would parallel the
gemoras use of Clallei haPsak. However, he  in fact states that he can't find
any position clearly superior to another. Therefore he will not rely upon a
particular posek's view of Truth. He instead will follow the majority of the
outstanding authorities. It is thus a mechanical rule - not concerned with the
content of the analysis but merely which is the majority viewpoint. This
mechanical rule is not eilu v'eilu. The Rif, the Rosh and the Rambam -
individually can be viewed as True according to Eilu v' Eilu. Following a
majority will end up with a halachic view which is not completely consistent
with any actual posek.

Again I reiterate - I don't know of any posek prior to the Beis Yosef who
utilized such a concept of psak. The only precedent seems to be the Sanhedrin
itself. But I don't know of any basis to assert that the Rif, Rosh and Rambam
are equivalent to the Sanhedrin - the Beis Yosef himself does not make such an
assertion.
                                                Daniel Eidensohn

Good to hear from you!

On Mon, 27 Aug 1956, David Riceman wrote:

> Incidentally, I once encountered a case containing three pairs of
> tefillin.  Its owner was not present.  My best guess (with which I'm
> still not satisfied) was that it was owned by a pair of Siamese twins -
> two heads, one left arm - of exceptional piety.  Any better suggestions? 
> 

Shimusha Rabba?

> 5.  (New subject)  What is the relationship between the American
> institution called a synagogue and the halachic institution called a
> kehilla? 
>

Is not the correct answer "none?"

YGB

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

ME:  Maharal in Gur Arye asks (1) how could Chava have thought
negiya of the eitz hada'as was wrong, (2) even acc. to her mistake how did
the nachash pushing her into the tree shake her faith in the din of Hashem
- she should have figured that she was anusa!  I don't get the second half
of the question - I thought there was no claim of ones by a ben noach?! 
Maharal's answer - the tree wasn't b'geder issur, it was b'geder sakanah.
She thought Hashem prohibited eating, but assumed that all contact prob. 
has some danger associated with it.  Obviously there is no claim of ones
on sakanah, e.g. if you swallow poision you can't claim ones and expect to
live.  Of course, based on this approach it is hard to understand 'kol
hamosif goreya in this context - perhaps had the geder been issur and not
sakkanah, ain hachi namei, it would be appropriate to be mosif and create
more gedarim. 

YGB:	Even if the they had a din of Bnei noach achar ha'cheit nireh li
le'chadeish that before the cheit they had a din of Yisroel. Yesh li
ra'ayos einan mochichos:  The nisayon was on a chok.  Adam HaRishon had a
chalos shem orlah.  There are probably other ra'ayos, and you may take this
discussion public  if you'd like!

ME: Public it now is - as I fail to comprehend YGB's response or the ra'ayos.


--part0_908847593_boundary--

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


[ 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 ]