Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 070

Saturday, December 5 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #69
• Re: Avodah V2 #69
• Re: Avodah V2 #69
• Re: objective chilul Hashem
• RE: Avodah V2 #69
• Re: Avodah V2 #68
• [none]
• Divrei Sofrim
• changing psak based on manuscripts

>May we change p'sak based
>on our scholarship and unearthing of manuscripts and later shittos
rishonim
>concerning such a case?
>Noach Witty

It would be helpful if someone on the list could find the mekor for the
rumor (?) that the talmidei haRif would not deviate from their rav's psak
despite the fact that they had found t'shuvos ha'geonim on the same
subject contradicting the Rif..   

It is also well known that the Chazon Ish was not impressed by any of the
new manuscripts that were flourishing in his day.  I recall reading this
in one of the s'forim quoting selections of his letters.  I'm sorry, I
don't remember the source.

Raffy

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

There have been three Tradition articles on this opinion of the Chazon Ish.
Two in the early eighties by Prof. SZ Leiman and Rav Yehuda and one more
recently by Rav Moshe Bleich.

> It is also well known that the Chazon Ish was not impressed by any of the
> new manuscripts that were flourishing in his day.  I recall reading this
> in one of the s'forim quoting selections of his letters.  I'm sorry, I
> don't remember the source.
>
> Raffy

> 
> It would be helpful if someone on the list could find the mekor for the
> rumor (?) that the talmidei haRif would not deviate from their rav's psak
> despite the fact that they had found t'shuvos ha'geonim on the same
> subject contradicting the Rif..
> 
>I was under the impression that it was well established that many of the Rishonim(the rambam in particular) held that the Rishonoim were 
greater (more authoritative) than the geonim. I remember this well from 
a history class I took in college. If so it's not surprising that the 
Talmedai harif would follow him in the face of geonim. If my impression 
is mistaken I would love to know--thanks
Elie Ginsparg

<< Please note B"R 46:3, where Avrohom argues with Hashem, that he should
 nott fulfill the mitzva of mila because it would deter potential gerim <<<

And Avraham was overruled.

We don't find in Rambam or SA a din that a mitzva should not be done if it
results in a chilul Hashem (however you choose to define it) -  what is the
precedent for this claim?

-Chaim


 
 

Re: MEDICINE: Look in Yoreh Deah Siman 336:1 (Dinei Harofeh) and I quote:
"nitna hatorah reshut l'rofeh l'ra'poht UMITZVA HI..". See the Prisha on
TUR YD 336 re: the Ramban holding that Rapoh Yerapeh is a mitzva. The Sefer
Chassidim calls anyone who could have studied medicine but didn't a murderer.
See also the words of the Rambam in Shmoneh Perakim.

Did you know that apart from the Rambam, the following Rishonim also
practiced medicine: the Ramban, the RAN (who was the physician in the royal
palace), the Ibn Ezra) ?

Dr. Josh

>  Is there any Gemara that brings an action of the avot as support for a
>     halachic discussion
>     ^^^^^^^^
> Do you include zmanei tfila and zrizin makdimim in this category?
> 
> Kol Tuv
> Joel Rich

Not Zemanei tefila as that is not directly in the Torah.
Furthermore, that is also because of the sacrifices.

Is zerizei makdimim learned from Abraham or is that an example?
> 
R YGB writes

> Once anything vis a vis an Adam
> Chashuv can become Chillul Hashem, well, then so can belligerence and
> angry protestations, any hafganot that exceed darchei noam, etc. I did not
> intend to argue that the yishuv itself was the CH, rather the modus
> operandi of the mityashvim (This may also be a good argument
> against hafganot against Chitutei Shachvei etc. - perhapss this may serve
> as a hetter not to protesst these activities.)
> 
As others have pointed out we agree that opposition to returning land is
not a license to improper behavior or as you put it anything that
exceeds darchei noam.

As to the other points we will have to disagree and I personally don't
see anything I can contribute further on this point.

However, I reiterate my point that chillul hashem should also affect
religious legislation and coercion and many recent anti-chiloni acts.
I just cam across a quote from Rav Lictenstein that stated explicitly
that most religious legislation while it may make some people more
religious in the short term does great damage in the long term.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Subject: demons

The recent daf yomi deals with pairs (zugot) and other practices
that arise from demons and magic. I am aware of the disagreement
between Rambam and others on the existence of demons and magic.
If anyone has other sources I would appreciate it.

Question: while most of the statements in the gemara Pesachin 109-113
did not make into Rambam and shulchan arukh some did like
putting food under the bed
going out at night alone
washing hands after cutting nails - throwing away the nails(?)

Furthermore shulchan arukh harav brings down several others that are
not in shulchan arukh.

However, many other like the pairs itself, sleeping in the shade of
the moon, relievibg oneself on a date tree etc. are not mentioned.

Does anyone know the basis of including some of these halachot
but not others?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

As Dr. Koppel has pointed out there is solid evidence that the Rambam at
one time considered kinyan kesef to be rabbinic and then he changed his
mind. The Frenkel Rambam cites a number of editions of the Rambam which
have the text in hilchos ishus to be "doreissa" or "doreissa as
explained by the sofrim" instead of the divrei sofrim in our current
text.

As I pointed out from the Divrei Emes there were gaonim who also held
divrei sofrim or things learned from the 13 midos to be rabbinic. An
interesting example is found in Rashi - Kesubos 3a in which he says " I
heard all my rabbeim explaining that kiddushei kesef is derabbonon but
that is impossible to say...."

An important difference between divrei sofrim and derabbonin is the
distinction the Rambam makes in Mamrim Perek 2 that that which is
learned from the 13 midos can be changed by a later beis din - even if
not greater than the first while for rabbinic legislation a greater
court is required.[ If you look at the peirush to the Mishna in Eiduyos
- the Rambam does not make such a distinction but merely says no psak
can be changed by a later court unless it is greater.] The Ohr Someach
[mamrim] notes that a person becomes a zakein mamre only for violating
the current beis din's understanding of  something learned from the 13
midos  i.e. divrei sofrim. Zakein mamre does not apply to an open verse.
Furthermore even if the zakein mamre has a valid mesora and the current
court only has a sevora - we listen to the present day court and execute
the one who refuses to accept the modern understanding. Thus according
to the Rambam - divrei sofrim depend entirely on the current
understanding of the Sanhedrin and are therefore actually more
changeable than outright rabbinic legislation.

This greater freedom to change is a two edge sword. 1) It gives
tremendous authority to contemporary poskim to be the final arbiters of
what is halacha 2) on the other hand it provides a rational for those
who want to abrogate halacha as Hirsch noted the Reform movement actual
did.

In sum. 1) According to some gaonic sources  divrei sofrim is what we
would call rabbinic today. thus Rashi's teachers, the shi'iltos, and the
Rambam  2) divrei sofrim are laws derirved from interpretation that
remain fluid - independent of  mesorah - and thus depend entirely on the
authority of contemporary authorities and courts even if not greater
than previous generations. In contrast  - Rabbinic legislation requiring
a greater court to change - is less likely to actually ever change.

The puzzle remains as to how to put all of this together.


                                   Daniel Eidensohn

The Tradition article dealing with the issue of use of manuscripts is
vol 27 #2 winter 1993. The Chazon Ish's position is presented as
basically a consensus one. Manuscripts are not simple rejected but it
depends on the consequence of acceptance, the agreement or consistency
with known positions and the evidence that the manuscript is actually
more accurate than other sources.

Noah Witty asks:
>May we change p'sak based
>on our scholarship and unearthing of manuscripts and later shittos rishonim
>concerning such a case?

Without getting involved in the specific example given in the posting, the
Chazon Ish in Kovetz Igros, vol. II, no. 23, says that newly found
manuscripts are of little value in arriving at halachic conclusions. See
also vol. I, no. 32, where he has a similar attitude toward versions of the
Talmudic text which are not mentioned by the rishonim.

Yisrael Herczeg

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


[ 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 ]