Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 135

Sunday, July 25 1999

• Re: divided community
• AirShul Corrections
• Bal Tosif
• Hammurabi, Gilgamesh, etc. - thoughts of MaHaRiL Diskin
• Avoiding Conflicts within Orthodoxy
• unity
• Re: Allegorization and the tshuvat haRashba
• Re: Allegorization and the tshuvat haRashba
• Re: Bal Tosif

Eli Turkel wrote:

> > There was an Symposium:"On Divided and Distinguished Worlds" in Tradition
> > Winter 1992. Rabbi Moshe Eisemann page 32-34 said:
>
> Actually, I found that article quite disturbing. If I recall he also said
> that those who don't accept daat Torah are not really religious.

I don't think we read the same article.

page 33 "A black hat and a kippa seruga respectively, cover heads which harbor
profoundly differing ideas about the nature of kelal Yisrael, medinat Yisrael,
Emunat Hakhamim and a host of related issues which are anything but trivial. If
the two groups find it hard to communicate, it is because they believe honestly
and passionately that the other side is misreading Israel's history and destiny in
ways which shake the very foundations of our being.
I have been in a yeshivat hesder and heard the haredi community described as
heretics [!] because, from their perceived attitude towards the Medina, they
clearly "deny G-d's providence in history". I have heard adherents of the yeshivat
hesder ideology described in similar terms because, so it is claimed, they drain
Judaism of all content by going it alone and refusing to be guided by Da'at Torah.
There are no small matters. They are worth fighting over. Moreover, they make talk
of "major halakhic and religious issues which unite the Orthodox community"
meaningless. The opinions held in these areas of cosmic significance color the
entire gamut of the religious enterprise.

> Rabbi Eisemann basically says that whatever he declares to be important
> is worth making a fight over no matter what the damage.

Again - he makes no such claim in the article. The rest of your [deleted] comments
bear no relationship to what was stated in the article. He is simply saying that
differences do exist - but he did not take sides. He is asserting that contrary to
the assertions of the live and let live school (a.k.a. eilu v'eilu) - the
differences are not trivial and represent issues which can not be calmly ignored.
Your strong negative comments only reinforce his point.

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>that having been said, members of different--legitimate--communities
>should be respectful and friendly with each other.  For example, I
>was very impressed with the way Rav Sholom Kamenetsky (of
>Philadelphia) treated me.  I have no haveh aminah that he will become
>a YUnick, but he seemed genuinely interested in what I had to say
>(and naturally, the reverse is true as well) and treated me with
>respect.  (Of course, the sever panim yafot extended by the
>Kamenetsky family is legendary.)  OTOH some Israeli charedi cousins
>(while friendly towards me because of our family ties) did not extend
>the same respect towards me.  Apparently, they could not distinguish
>between views that they disagreed with and views that are heretical.

Again Rav Eisemann's point is that strongly held feelings that someone else is
destroying yiddishkeit should not be automatically suppressed. Friendly
relationships - as everything else in yiddishkeit - needs to be determined  on a
direct halachic analysis with the guidance of your personal religious authority.

Of greater import is your assertions that only heretical views deserve
condemnation. I saw no such principle in Rabbi Rosensweig Spring 1992 article on
eilu v'eilu. Your citation of the Maharal's brother - who strongly condemend the
Shulchan Aruch - gives no indication that he smiled gently when doing so.

Bottom line. Aside from your obvious upset about the lack of civility of
disputants - neither of you has cited sources to justify your personal opinions
(including your condemnations of the right wing) nor have you cited any gedolim
who agree with your intuitions. You have to come up with something more
substantial. All I am hearing is that the consequences of dispute are distressing
(which I fully agree). You have not brought any support for  your blanket
condemnation of disputes and of those gedolim who have been involved in them.


                                  Daniel Eidensohn


BTW regarding the issue of allegorizing the mabul - Rabbi Rosensweig says page 6
"on the social-communal level, too, there is not the same kind of urgency for
uniformity in the sphere of hashkafa as there is in halakha...And yet, the broad
parameters of even this pluralism should not be misconstrued as unrestricted as
some would have us believe. Moses Mendsohn's dogma of the 'dogmalessness of
Judaism' is clearly an unacceptable exaggeration, explicity rejected by Rishonim
who articulated Articles of Faith in whatever form, pattern or number. Obviously
there can be no Orthodox Judaism without an absolute afirmation of certain basic
concepts of G-d, or the commitment to a binding halacha based on the concept of
Torah miSinai, and of the notion of human responsibility ...Morever, beyond
adherence to official Ikarrim, it is evident that to be acceptable as a legitimate
expression of Judaism, a perspective must establish itself by meeting aditional
basic criteria. It should for example have visible roots in authoritative texts or
in Rabbinic tradition (mesora) and it shoud be advocated by a religious
personality of some stature.

Just a couple of points to correct some misconceptions on the
shul-in-a-plane story:

a)  The Aron Kodesh would be mounted on TRACKS, not hinges so that the
"front" of the shul could always be (more or less) in the direction of
Jerusalem.

b)  The Airbus jet in question has a small passenger space BELOW the main
passenger deck.  Other airlines who have this jet use the space for a first
class bar/lounge, or a business work area or some other such thing.  Airbus
came up with the shul idea as a way to lure ElAl away from their exclusive
use of Boeing jets.

c)  ElAl never did this before because Boeing jets (the only kind in the
ElAl fleet to date) aren't designed with this kind of "below deck" space.

d)  Editorial Comment - I doubt that ElAl will go with the Airbus jet,
despite the attractiveness of the AirShul idea.  Whenever ElAl has looked
at the Airbus jets in the past, the US state deptartment would find a
gentle way to remind the Israeli government (the owners of ElAl) that the
US gives a lot of aid to Israel and it's not nice not to buy your patrons
products.

In other words the Golden Rule -- He who gives the gold, makes the rules.

Shavua Tov

hg


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

1. The Ramban subsumes the issur of a navi being mechadesh mitzvos under bal 
tosif when the source seems to be VaYikra 27 (see Meg 2b).  Someone suggested 
to me that perhaps there are 2 issurim: a issur on the navi from Vayikra 27 
and an issur on the tzibbur who acts on the chiddush mitzva from bal toseif.  
I'm a bit skeptical that that was Ramban's intention.

2. Ramban refers to Yerushalmi that the assembly of "85 zekeinim" were 
troubled with the institution of megillah/Purim.  What is this assembly - 
Anshe Knesset HaGedolah were 120?  

3. Rishonim ask why tekiyot d'meyushav are no problem of bal tosif.  Rashba, 
Ritva answer bec. takkanos derabbanan do not fall under bal tosif (see 
Ra'avad/Rambam ch. 2 of Mamrim); Tos. answers that doing a mitzva twice is 
not bal tosif.  In GraCH stencil he says Tos. did not give the simple answer 
of Rashba bec. Tos. held tekiyot demeyushav is a minhag and not a takkanah.  
Do we now acc. to R' Chaim have to justify all minhagim to avoid bal tosif?  
Also, it seems to go against the Brisker hesber (I think it is found in the 
kuntras on Mes. R"H and Sukkah) of saying a beracha on a minhag acc. to Tos. 
bec. the cheftaza falls under lo tasur - if so, why is a minhag different 
than any takanah derabbanan?

4. The Ra'avad in Hil Mamrim (2:9) writes that there is no issur for the 
rabbanan to create an issur and formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - after 
all, that is what an asmachta is.  It seems to me that the Ra'avad has a very 
different understanding of asmachta than a simple mnemonic, which is how the 
Ritva presents it (as quoted by the Torah Temimah every other parsha).

-Chaim

S. Stoker mentioned the fact that other cultures have flood stories 
(Gilgamesh, etc.) with different emphasis than the Torah's, and I brought up 
the parallels between Hammurabi's code and P' Mishpatim.  Here is an 
interesting MaHaRiL Diskin (Shut vol II ma'amar al siyum HaTorah) that may 
provide an approach to digest this stuff:

"All the Torah is called Torat Moshe, ***even though it contains stories that 
were known to the nation, or that occured at that time period***.  
Nonetheless, Hashem transmitted the corpus to Moshe with greater insight into 
the 48 ways [of interpreting Torah], or perhaps in the words of the story are 
hinted deeper secrets, all revealed to Moshe.  Also, the prophecies revealed 
to others, e.g. Noach, Yitzchak, Ya'akov, c"v Moshe did not merely transcribe 
them, for Moshe was zocheh to aspaklarya hameirah;  [rather,] Hashem revealed 
them [the prophecies] now [again] through Ruach HaKodesh in greater detail 
and understanding....therefore  it is called Torat Moshe."

-Chaim B.

RET's post on the escalation of rhetoric is interesting . However, in the 
post Tisha Bav and pre Elul season, I offer the following observation that I 
heard from Mori U Rabbi Rav Herschel Schachter. Why accentuate the "shtick" 
that diffferentiates Bnei Totah instead of underlining the fact that we all 
adhere to the same Shulchan Aruch and rabbinic authority? Rav Schachter spoke 
at an RCA convention and stressed that in his shiurim he will always include 
a comment from Rav Schach, The Satmar Rav Ztz'l ,Rav Moshe Feinstein Ztz'l , 
the Lubaavitcher Rebbe Ztz'l as well as Rav SoloveitchikZt'l if the comments 
enhance a shiur . 
                                                            Steven 
Brizel(Zeliglaw@aol.com)

> >
> Daniel Eidensohn writes
> 
> I gather you hold that eilu v'eilu is a model which minimizes if not
> eliminates the unpleasant results of having red lines and having to
> decide whether someone has crossed them. Could you please explain what
> exactly what you mean by the eilu v'eilu model? It obviously can't mean
> that everything is permissible or is to be tolerated in the name of peace
> and civility - or can it? Could you name some proponents of the eilu
> v'eilu model?
> 
> Yosef G. Bechhofer  writes
> 
> 
> My point, in noting myself RET's "warning" about the website, was to
> buttress a point that in fact, contrary to the understanding, perhaps, of
> some, RET and I are in agreement that one is within one's rights - within
> the framework of deference and mutual respect within the Halachic
> community - to note one's objections and protestations of another segment
> of our community's deviation from what we consider, respectively, to be
> normative Orthodox view and behaviors. 
> 
> Otherwise, we succumb to political correctness, and lose the potential
> positive impact of genuine and open debate on the issues that are real and
> significant. 
> 

In agreeing with RYGB let me make clear my objections to the article of
R. Eisemann.

It is perfectly legitimate and even necessary to disagree with opinions
that one feels are incorrect. I feel that the Moshiach movement of Chabad
is a threat to normative Jewish halacha and therefore I condemn it.
I have no problem with someone saying that there is an important issue,
for example daat Torah, which someone says is important and I may claim is
less important. Someone else insists that the creation of the world was
5759 years ago and I take it less literally. These are the discussions we
have on this list. 

It is another matter to show hatred and essentially read the opposition out
of orthodox Judaism. A chabadnik who be;ieves that the rebbe will arise as
Moshiach is in my opinion foolish and is against the standard Mesorah of the
Jewish people. Given the history of previous messianic movements it maybe
even be dangerous. However, I do not claim that these chabdniks are not Jewish
or do not observe mitzvot or are beyond the pale (except for the tiny
minority of extremists who advocate avodah zarah of the rebbe - which as far
as I know is condemned by Lubavitch spokesmen).
On the otherhand there are rabbis who essentially state that if one is a
zionist then that is equivalent to avodah zarah and one is out of the fold.
In fact it is the great zionist rabbis who are most guilty and the majority
just foolish followers.They advocate eliminating all zionists from the fold
of orthodox judaism. Similarly if one does not believe in daat Torah, or
the one follows a rebbe or does not take every pasuk in its most literal
sense then they are reform Jewry.
In my opinion the definition of orthodoxy is accepting the Shulchan Arukh
as ones guide in actions. 

My definition of eilu v'eilu is that whenever a major orthodox rabbi or
group advocates an opinion that is not explicitly against the Shulchan Arukh
the its advocates remain within orthodoxy. 
That does not mean that it is acceptable to everyone. To repeat myself
debate and advocacy is important and essential within bounds. The 
tendency today in many groups is to respond to a major rabbi with whom
one disagrees by stating that he is no longer an orthodox rabbi.

Returning to Chabad, I feel that the rebbe was a great person and the
movement has done wonders in bringing back many people into the fold.
That does not prevent me from objecting strenuously to the current
messianism. However, I do not turn my objections into a personal attack
on the rebbe.

Again in agreeing wholeheartedly with RYGB we need to distinguish between
civilized debate and between labeling every opponent as an Apikorus.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

I have stayed out of the allegory discussion, for two reasons:

1) R' Bechhofer is already mad at me for my post in the "sheep mentality"
thread (see bottom of post) so I didn't want to wade in as the only person
to disagree with his readings.  RMF has now disagreed with his reading of
the Rashba, so now I feel somewhat freer to disagree with some of his other
readings of sources.

2) I didn't want to say anything until I had read some sources.

3) Sorry it's late WRT most of the discussion; I tend to batch up the
digests, print them out, and read them over Shabbos. 

***

Some problems:

>                                  ...if you look in the Moreh 3:50 and the
>Ramban in Toras Hashem Temima, you will see that they were quite adamant
>in taking the episodes in Bereishis as fact, not allegory.

I looked in Moreh III:50, and while he may say that, he does not
mandate a literal understanding of the Flood.  He states that 
the Creation was true and a foundation of the Torah, and that 
various otherwise inexplicable passages (e.g. genealogies) are
brought as evidence to support the truth of the Creation.

But he inserts the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
as allegories.  He says that these two stories indicate that God
judges the world, and that He rewards the righteous.  He does not say
that it bears witness to the existence of the world, or to the existence
of the Flood, etc.  The Flood would work equally well as fiction as
it would as fact.  The mashalim that pepper the Midrash work the same
way: nobody expects them to be true (there was a king, who had two 
sons, etc.), but they illustrate a true point.

On the passage in Hil. Bet haBechirah: that anchors one point in reality,
that Noah built the ark.  But it does not anchor the rest of the story:
whether the flood was worldwide or localized, etc.

Rambam further defines "megaleh panim batorah shelo kehalachah" in
Hil. Teshuvah 3:11 as one who does aveirot high-handedly, demonstrating
to the world that he reveals his own self (face) as ignoring the Torah,
which would influence others to follow his way.

***

Another data point: the Meiri in Avos on megaleh panim shelo kehalacha.

He uses the same strong langauge you do against allegorization, but
he draws distinctions.  He gives three categories:

1) things which can only be understood as allegories (sodot hatorah);
these include various points of narrative which contradict common
sense and (our understanding of) physical reality.  He brings as an
example the claim that the Dor Haflagah wanted to build a tower "to
heaven" - this cannot be literally true, so it is clearly hyperbole.

2) things which can only be understood literally: these include
many mitzvot, particularly chukim.  Allegorizing these leads to
deleting things from the Torah.  Even finding taamei hamitzvot
for them is bad bad bad (contra Rambam & RSRH), because it will 
lead people to say that the reasons no longer apply, or don't apply
to them, and they will stop doing the mitzvot.

3) things which must be understood partly one way and partly the
other, which includes intellectually comprehensible mitzvot, such
as those banning murder, theft, commanding honor to parents, etc.

The strong language is reserved for those who interpret allegorically
inappropriately for categories 2 and 3.

***

On the question of "normative mesorah": how does one determine what
part of the mesorah is normative?  Rambam gives criteria in his intro
to the PhM, how to determine which halachot are undeniably part of
the Mesorah, and winds up with a very narrow definition that yields
37 halachot lemoshe misinai - all the rest could have been derived
from drashot.  Even R' Bechhofer's criterion of universal acceptance
of halachot indicating Divine inspiration does *not* indicate Mesorah-
nature.

Does anyone put forth an objective set of criteria for determining 
which interpretations of narrative are normative mesorah, i.e., known
parts of the Oral Torah given at Sinai, rather than interpretations 
which may have been constructed by the rabbis?

Without such an objective set of criteria, why should we rely on 
your say-so that *this* interpretation is normative, while *that*
interpretation is unacceptable allegory?

As you say, "Judaism rises and falls on the concept of Mesorah."
Without being able to distinguish what constitutes valid Mesorah
and what constitutes areas where people are free to use their
creative intelligence (bound, of course, by exegetical rules and
the limits of known halacha), said Mesoratic Judaism becomes a
house of cards.

***

On the question of relating allegorical interpretation to key phrases
in the Talmud:

RYGB writes:
>The search I ran was on "Shel Dofi". The Gemara in Sanhedrin 99b equates
>Doresh Derashos shel Dofi with MPbT. The Rashba calls the activities of
>these groups "Doresh Derashos shel Dofi" (DDsD).

With all due respect, this sounds like a weak chain of syllogisms.

Sanhedrin in 99b offers DDsD == MPbT as one possibility
out of a set of possible definitions of MPbT.  Yet, the Gemara brings
as its example of DDsD, King Menashe sitting and saying "This passage
is irrelevant, it doesn't belong, that passage is irrelevant, it 
doesn't belong."  Saying that a passage is redundant or irrelevant 
and should be removed entirely from the Torah is a very different thing
than saying (per Rambam in Moreh III:50) that a passage is an allegory
meant to teach a lesson.  In the former case, it should be removed.
In the latter case, it is an essential teaching by God.

Another alternative meaning of MPbT is making chiddushim (actually, 
looking at Meharsha, this looks more like a ban on psak-shopping: once
one rav has said the meat is treif, you can't go to another to find a
reason to call it kosher); another is calling one's rebbi by name.

You assume that DDsD is allegory, then associate MPbT with DDsD (which
is not apparently conclusive), then associate the nasty language associated
with MPbT qua allegorization of halacha with DDsD qua allegorization of 
pre-Abrahamic narrative.  It all sounds like the argument of "vayashkem
Avraham baboker, and surely he wouldn't have gone out without a headcovering."
You assume your answer, then prove it based on arguments that aren't really
conclusive.

***

Given that
  a) there are Rishonim such as Rambam & Meiri who disagree with your premise;
  b) the Bartenura in Avot limits MPbT to matters of changing halacha,
including DDsD;
  c) the Gemara doesn't seem to agree with your definitions and equivalences;
  d) the Rambam in PhM to Avot 3:11 takes the Gemara's definition via
Menashe for MPbT (aha, that's how you get the MPbT == DDsD definitively,
ignoring his later understanding of MPbT in the Yad; also I think Meharsha
holds that MPbT is disagreeing with the interpretations of the rabbis even
for narrative); and
  e) even the Rashba can be read differently than you do, per RMF,
  how can you unequivocally use such harsh language on those who would
allegorize (at least details of, if not the whole) Flood story? 

To allegorize the *whole* Flood story does seem to be right out, per Rambam,
BhB 2:2.  Maybe that halacha is a piece of normative mesorah about narrative
issues?

*** ***

On the other issue, I too was surprised by El-Or's findings - it didn't 
really gibe with the American haredi women I know, either.  Her book
talked about women in certain haredi towns in Israel, e.g. Bnai Brak.

Another essay I read recently (by someone else) described a major
difference in outlook and ideology between "American haredim" and
"Israeli haredim" (whose families came to Israel straight from Europe)
- that American haredim are more at ease with the outside world, and
with material goods.  This may also be reflected in differences in ideas
of authority between R' Bechhofer's and my experience of knowing American
haredi women, and El-Or's study of Israeli haredi women.

    Jonathan Baker     |  Mishenichnas av mim'atin besmicha.
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  Puns suspended for the duration.

I will try to be brief.

On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> Some problems:
> 
> >                                  ...if you look in the Moreh 3:50 and the
> >Ramban in Toras Hashem Temima, you will see that they were quite adamant
> >in taking the episodes in Bereishis as fact, not allegory.
> 
> I looked in Moreh III:50, and while he may say that, he does not mandate
> a literal understanding of the Flood.  He states that the Creation was
> true and a foundation of the Torah, and that various otherwise
> inexplicable passages (e.g. genealogies) are brought as evidence to
> support the truth of the Creation. 
> 
> But he inserts the Flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as
> allegories.  He says that these two stories indicate that God judges the
> world, and that He rewards the righteous.  He does not say that it bears
> witness to the existence of the world, or to the existence of the Flood,
> etc.  The Flood would work equally well as fiction as it would as fact. 
> The mashalim that pepper the Midrash work the same way: nobody expects
> them to be true (there was a king, who had two sons, etc.), but they
> illustrate a true point. 
> 

This is not what the Rambam says, in either the Hebrew or English edition.
The Rambam regards the stories (and others) as historical fact, and is,
rather, explainng why these historical facts were included in the Torah
while others were not.

> On the passage in Hil. Bet haBechirah: that anchors one point in
> reality, that Noah built the ark.  But it does not anchor the rest of
> the story:  whether the flood was worldwide or localized, etc. 
> 

The Tradition article took everything as allegory, least so far as I could
tell.

> Rambam further defines "megaleh panim batorah shelo kehalachah" in Hil.
> Teshuvah 3:11 as one who does aveirot high-handedly, demonstrating to
> the world that he reveals his own self (face) as ignoring the Torah,
> which would influence others to follow his way. 
> 

There are many definitions of MPbT.

Most of the rest of RJJB's post reads as a legal brief to defend the
status of an author that wrote an essay like that in Tradition as a
ma'amin. I t was not my intent to cast aspersion on the author's personal
status. I myself noted that any lamdan can easily be mechalek between the
precise technical definition of MPbT and this specific form of DDsD.
Neverthelss, as R' Zvi Weiss noted in the still unanswered questions in
his post, one who, to paraphrae R' Noach Weinberg, acts as a judge, not a
lawyer, will readily see the remarkable resemblance between this DDsD and
MPbT, and will perecive readily the parallel to the Rashba.

> You assume that DDsD is allegory, then associate MPbT with DDsD (which
> is not apparently conclusive), then associate the nasty language
> associated with MPbT qua allegorization of halacha with DDsD qua
> allegorization of pre-Abrahamic narrative.  It all sounds like the
> argument of "vayashkem Avraham baboker, and surely he wouldn't have gone
> out without a headcovering."  You assume your answer, then prove it
> based on arguments that aren't really conclusive. 
> 

It is not just I, but the Bartenura in Avos and the Rashba in his
teshuvos, who describe allegory (the former in halachic passages, the
latter in narritive passages) as MPbT/DDsD.

YGB

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

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED6AC.DD8AC250
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

REC writes:

>>>1. The Ramban subsumes the issur of a navi being mechadesh mitzvos =
under bal=20
tosif when the source seems to be VaYikra 27 (see Meg 2b).  Someone =
suggested=20
to me that perhaps there are 2 issurim: a issur on the navi from Vayikra =
27=20
and an issur on the tzibbur who acts on the chiddush mitzva from bal =
toseif. =20
I'm a bit skeptical that that was Ramban's intention.<<<

So does the Rambam in his Hakdama to Pirush Hamishnayos, and in Hil. =
Yesodei Hatorah 9:1, in addition to "Loi Bashomayim He", and see Lechem =
Mishneh (ibid), also see MaHaRaTZ Chayous in his Divrei Nvi'im, Maamar =
Bal Tosif, that Bal Tosif is for Chochom, to be Mchdeish Bgeder Novee we =
learn from here (see Pri Mgodim Psicha Kllolis O"C Chelek 1 Ois 37, =
perhaps HLM"M is different, we once discussed this), in any case =
according to Rambam a Novee that is Mchadeish is a Novee Sheker, and =
Missosoi Bchenek.

>>>2. Ramban refers to Yerushalmi that the assembly of "85 zekeinim" =
were=20
troubled with the institution of megillah/Purim.  What is this assembly =
-=20
Anshe Knesset HaGedolah were 120?<<<

See MaHaRaTz Chayos Megila 17b, (in addition there is question as to =
whether they were all in the same generation see Seder Hadoros by Rabi =
Shimon Hatzadik, even according to Mashmous Horambam that they were at =
the same time, is there any Hechrech that before returning to Eretz =
Yisroel he had 120 in his B"D?).  =20

>>>3. Rishonim ask why tekiyot d'meyushav are no problem of bal tosif.  =
Rashba,=20
Ritva answer bec. takkanos derabbanan do not fall under bal tosif (see=20
Ra'avad/Rambam ch. 2 of Mamrim); Tos. answers that doing a mitzva twice =
is=20
not bal tosif.  In GraCH stencil he says Tos. did not give the simple =
answer=20
of Rashba bec. Tos. held tekiyot demeyushav is a minhag and not a =
takkanah. =20
Do we now acc. to R' Chaim have to justify all minhagim to avoid bal =
tosif? =20
Also, it seems to go against the Brisker hesber (I think it is found in =
the=20
kuntras on Mes. R"H and Sukkah) of saying a beracha on a minhag acc. to =
Tos.=20
bec. the cheftaza falls under lo tasur - if so, why is a minhag =
different=20
than any takanah derabbanan?<<<

This idea is already brought in the Pri Mgodim in his Psicha Kllolis, =
(ibid Ois 38,) Vayin Shom, (note: this would only apply to something =
that is a (positive) Minhag that is adding to a Mitzvah Doireisoh like =
twice Shofar).

>>>4. The Ra'avad in Hil Mamrim (2:9) writes that there is no issur for =
the=20
rabbanan to create an issur and formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - =
after=20
all, that is what an asmachta is.  It seems to me that the Ra'avad has a =
very=20
different understanding of asmachta than a simple mnemonic, which is how =
the=20
Ritva presents it (as quoted by the Torah Temimah every other =
parsha).<<<

See Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Asmachta and Pri Mgodim (ibid Ois 20).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED6AC.DD8AC250
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>REC writes:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt;1. The Ramban subsumes the =
issur of a=20
navi being mechadesh mitzvos under bal <BR>tosif when the source seems =
to be=20
VaYikra 27 (see Meg 2b).&nbsp; Someone suggested <BR>to me that perhaps =
there=20
are 2 issurim: a issur on the navi from Vayikra 27 <BR>and an issur on =
the=20
tzibbur who acts on the chiddush mitzva from bal toseif.&nbsp; <BR>I'm a =
bit=20
skeptical that that was Ramban's intention.&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So does the Rambam in his Hakdama to =
Pirush=20
Hamishnayos, and in Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 9:1, in addition to "Loi =
Bashomayim=20
He", and see Lechem Mishneh (ibid), also see MaHaRaTZ Chayous in his =
Divrei=20
Nvi'im, Maamar Bal Tosif, that Bal Tosif is for Chochom, to be Mchdeish =
Bgeder=20
Novee we learn from here (see Pri Mgodim Psicha Kllolis O"C Chelek 1 Ois =
37,=20
perhaps HLM"M is different, we once discussed this), </FONT><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>in any case according to Rambam a Novee that is Mchadeish is a =
Novee=20
Sheker, and Missosoi Bchenek.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt;2. Ramban refers to =
Yerushalmi that the=20
assembly of "85 zekeinim" were <BR>troubled with the institution of=20
megillah/Purim.&nbsp; What is this assembly - <BR>Anshe Knesset =
HaGedolah were=20
120?&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>See MaHaRaTz Chayos Megila 17b, (in =
addition there=20
is question as to whether they were all in the same generation&nbsp;see =
Seder=20
Hadoros by Rabi Shimon Hatzadik, even according to Mashmous Horambam =
that they=20
were at the same time,&nbsp;is there any Hechrech=20
that&nbsp;before&nbsp;returning to Eretz Yisroel he had 120 in his=20
B"D?).&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt;3. Rishonim ask why tekiyot =
d'meyushav=20
are no problem of bal tosif.&nbsp; Rashba, <BR>Ritva answer bec. =
takkanos=20
derabbanan do not fall under bal tosif (see <BR>Ra'avad/Rambam ch. 2 of =
Mamrim);=20
Tos. answers that doing a mitzva twice is <BR>not bal tosif.&nbsp; In =
GraCH=20
stencil he says Tos. did not give the simple answer <BR>of Rashba bec. =
Tos. held=20
tekiyot demeyushav is a minhag and not a takkanah.&nbsp; <BR>Do we now =
acc. to=20
R' Chaim have to justify all minhagim to avoid bal tosif?&nbsp; =
<BR>Also, it=20
seems to go against the Brisker hesber (I think it is found in the =
<BR>kuntras=20
on Mes. R"H and Sukkah) of saying a beracha on a minhag acc. to Tos. =
<BR>bec.=20
the cheftaza falls under lo tasur - if so, why is a minhag different =
<BR>than=20
any takanah derabbanan?&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>This idea is already brought in the Pri =
Mgodim in=20
his Psicha Kllolis, (ibid Ois 38,) Vayin Shom, (note: this would only =
apply to=20
something that is a (positive) Minhag that is adding to a Mitzvah =
Doireisoh like=20
twice Shofar).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>&gt;&gt;&gt;4. The Ra'avad in Hil =
Mamrim (2:9)=20
writes that there is no issur for the <BR>rabbanan to create an issur =
and=20
formulate it as if it was a d'oraysa - after <BR>all, that is what an =
asmachta=20
is.&nbsp; It seems to me that the Ra'avad has a very <BR>different =
understanding=20
of asmachta than a simple mnemonic, which is how the <BR>Ritva presents =
it (as=20
quoted by the Torah Temimah every other =
parsha).&lt;&lt;&lt;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>See Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech =
Asmachta and Pri=20
Mgodim (ibid Ois 20).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Kol =
Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Yitzchok =
Zirkind</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01BED6AC.DD8AC250--

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]