Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 053

Friday, June 28 2002

• Tefila al haniftar
• Re: Birur
• re: The/A mesorah
• Re: The/A mesorah
• RE: Black Jews
• Re: masorah
• Re: Black Jews
• Question for the group
• Re: ketuba
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: avinu malkenu
• Re: emunas chachomim
• Re: Sharkskin, sturgeon and kosher caviar
• Re: More on Sharkskin
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• Amazing Piaczesner
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Tur organization
• Re: Derashah and Sevarah

Today, 18th Tammuz, is the yarzeit of my grandparents and dozens of
their family members - as well as the majority of the members of the
kehilla kedosha Vac (Weitzen) in Hungary.

So after Shachris I learned a perek mishnayos and then said the printed
Tefila al haniftar.

My first question; are the words about requesting that the neshomo be
welcomed to Gan Eden - '...usekabel oso b'ahavo ubechibo.." - relevant
to a niftar of 50-60 years ago?
One would hope that all the requests made there have been fulfilled in
the passing decades.

2) For those murdered al kiddush Hashem, do they bichlall need such
tefilos?
Don't they get their just rewards - for being Kedoshim?

3) The text of the tefila - "...vehaguf yonu'ach bakever bimenucho
nechono..., ...vesishmor oso mechibut hakever umerimo vesole'o..."
The vast majority of the 6 million kedoshim were not zoche to a kever
or even have problems with rimo vesole'o, so what is the point of saying
this tefila for them?

I am sure that I am not the first person to ask these questions in the
past 50 years...but wouldn't mind hearing from those who have heard
responses.

SBA

In a message dated 6/27/02 4:34:35 PM, Micha Berger writes:
>: We Ashkenazim simply don't have the evidence -- the metzius, if you
>: will -- to say we're any more Jewish than the Ethiopians...

> Evidence is birur. Don't confuse the truth with the ability to prove
> the truth.

> We have a mesorah. Same way we know about ma'amad Har Sinai.

I don't agree that mesorah itself is enough to answer questions such
as these, especially as mesorah (at least as I understand the term)
encompasses minhag and other forms of communitarian tradition, even
folklore, that fall below the level of binding psak.

Psak is psak. But we're still free -- even obligated -- to think about the
issues implicated by psak through whatever intellectual tools that promote
emes. The purpose of these tools isn't to produce birur. "Evidence"
is a utilitarian and legalistic concept, in halacha as well as in other
normative systems. Emes is broader and more elusive.

I think the Ramban, for one, would agree with me.

David Finch

R' Micha Berger asked <<< Suppose we encounter a community that can prove
they (as a community) date back to bayis rishon. They were cut off from
the flow of mesorah since before Anshei Kenesses haGedolah. Presumably
such people would have a vastly different halachah than we do. ... Could
well look like a different religion. Is there some objective definition by
which one tradition would be right, and the other wrong? Are we following
"the mesorah" or "a mesorah"? >>>

I have wondered this very question for a very long time. I have always
been looking to see it mentioned in discussions about the Beta Yisrael
and other groups which make similar claims, and have been disappointed
that I haven't seen anyone ask it. Until now.

It has always seemed obvious to me that each group follows their own
Poskim. Ashkenazim follow Ashkenaz poskim. Syrians follow Syrian poskim.
Etc etc etc. The fact that they disagree on serious issues never seems to
bother anyone. There are many issues where Posek A says that something is
assur d'Oraisa (or at least a safek d'Oraisa) and Posek B says that it is
mutar l'chatchila (or at least b'shaas hadchak). Y'all can probably think
of more examples than I can, but I bet that certain cases of reheating
food on Shabbos are like this.

If a specific group accepts a certain day to observe as a happy holiday,
or as a sad one, other group do not necessarily follow along. Especially
if the groups are not in contact with each other, it's not a big deal
or an insult that they aren't sharing the day with their brothers,
because they were not around for the event that the day commemorates.

So if you'd find a group such as R' Micha describes, why should they
feel obligated to observe Chanukah and Purim? If we split before Churban
Bayis Rishon, we shouldn't even expect them to keep Tisha B'av!

If they admitted ignorance to the details of a mitzvah (or many mitzvos)
I don't know if they should feel obligated to accept our Mesorah about
it. Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, and they claimed to know
how to make techeiles, would we feel obligated to accept them?

When talking about these topics with people over the years, I've
occasionally heard comments like how that lost group has now rejoined
the main group. I'm not sure if I agree with that ethnocentrism or not.
There's more of them (10 tribes) than there are of us (2 tribes).

Akiva Miller

In a message dated 6/25/02 7:26:43 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Suppose we encounter a community that can prove they (as a community)
> date back to bayis rishon....
> Presumably such people would have a vastly different halachah than we
> do....
> Is there some objective definition by which one tradition would be right,
> and the other wrong? Are we following "the mesorah" or "a mesorah"?

1) It is clear to me that Ezra made various Takkanos to distinguish
Jews from Samaritans, etc. It would be hard to see a non-Ezra versoin
of Judaism as being Judaism as we know it. {Probably would not be even
termed "Judaism"

2) Furthermore, it would not be deemed "Rabbinical Judaism" without
Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai's Takkanos.

Think about this: Let's say a community followed some combination of
Tanach and Josephus, how would you view them?
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> But then the argument goes the other way: the Ethiopians have a mesorah,
> recognized by RaDBaz, that they are Jews. Why not simply rely on that
> mesorah?

DID the RaDBaz bases his psak on an analysis of that mesorah? AIUI
his actual contact with Ethiopians was *very* minimal (1 or 2, if any)
and his psak was based on the reports of others.

Akiva

Reb Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
> RMB asked what would be if someone showed up with a claim that they had
> a parallel mesorah having been broken off from the rest of Jewry prior
> to the time of churban bayis sheni.

> Such an event happened, sort of. Sefer Eretz Yisroel of Eldad haDani...
>                                                             Yet we see
> that if such an event would occur there would be halachic analysis of
> such opinions. Certainly not an impossibility.

I do not own a copy of Seref EY, nor do I know whether a good copy is
available either as an independent work in print or in an academic
article. However, the Mordechai in beginning of 'Hullin quotes a
number of halakhot, including keshesho'htim, ponim el makom tefillah,
meaning that we she'ht towards Yerushalayim, a minhag that is unknown
from other sources.

Rav Bleich, when covering this in his shiur suggested that this is
nothing else than our piece partners' habit of turning to Mecca when
slaughtering their animals.

Such interpretation is consistent with reb Eldad being an impostor, as
some rishonim thought. The fact that Reb Eldad's suggestion re: women
was accepted by Ashkenazim, even though it is against the Mishnah(!) is
merely a reflection of
	(a) Ashkenazim possibly worrying more about unconfirmed minhagim
	than Sephardim (see the _many_ _threads_ back in volume 8
	between RW and me re: halakhik methodology of Rema and BY).
	(b) The fact that women weren't she'hting too often anyway,
	so formulating a ban had few consequences, and they could get
	away with it because women being granted a lower social standing
	than men in the Middle Ages, so that such ban would have been
	considered normal. (R'nRF is going to slap me with some bits
	and bytes, I know;-) But it's true anyway).

In conclusion, reb Eldad's story has little to do with parallel messorot,
unless you consider only the reactions of then contemporary authorities.
However, you'd first have to separate all those authorities in sceptics
and believers in Eldad.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

RMF wrote:
> Perhaps, mesorah should be compared to chazakah: we rely on it but if
> there is a rei'u'sah, we don't. In the case of the Ethiopians, genetics
> is a rei'u'sah to their mesorah. In the case of Ashkenazim, it isn't.

Just FYI, RYSE will definitely disagree with you (but plenty of poskim are 
very upset at his "gezeirah"), as he explicitly prohibits using DNA to 
determine halakhik whatevers, out of fear that it will prove many people to 
be mazeirim. Instead he promulgated a ban on use of DNA in psak.

Some poskim were hoping that RYSE would change his mind after the WTC attack, 
but I think that all (all but one?) 'igun cases have been resolved through 
traditional evidence, so that the discussion didn't get too far.

Arie Folger

Has anyone ever heard of a "Minhag" in an Orthodox Synagogue of not
saying Selichot on a fast day
(There are plenty of people fasting etc.)
I would deeply ppreciate any feedback on this issue

Eli Turkel wrote:
> At my son's wedding the mesader kiddushin insisted that the eidim read
> the entire ketuba. When I asked him he said they have to know what they
> are signing.

> Has anyone else seen this?

I was once an eid, and the other eid (who is quite knowledgable) insisted
that we read it before signing. I didn't ask him why, but I assumed that
it was because eidus in a shtar is like nechkara b'veis din, and therefore
implies (at the very least) serious attention to what's going on.

David Riceman

Micha Berger wrote:
> 1- Tzitzis - O"Ch 8:8 (Although I asked why not the pasuq.)
> 2- Tefillin - O"Ch 25:5
> 3- Succah - MB (early in the discussion of succah)
> 4- Tefillah - the only R' Chaim on Hil' Tefillah

The source for sukka is also a passuk.

David Riceman

In a message dated 6/27/02 5:09:01PM EDT, turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:
> Artscroll says most sefard shuls do not say avinu malkenu on a fast day.
> Every sefard shul I have been in does say it.

FWIW, the German Minhag is to Say Avinu Malkeinu ONLY during 10 days
of Tshuva and NOT on a Ta'anis Tzibbur {except for Tzom gedlayah which
falls under the first category}

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 6/24/02 5:08:29pm EDT, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> Regarding the issue of the fallibility of gedolim.
...
> Seridei Aish (1:113): I frequently explain the apparent contradiction found
> in Avos(6:5) concerning those factors involved in acquiring Torah i.e.
> pilpul of the students and emunas chachomim....

May I add the following

There is a  qualitative difference between
1) Surrendering oneself to a single Chacham and to give that person
infallbility
2) Surrendering to a "broad" consensus of Chachamim

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Oy ! Make that a double OY ! (like in Irving Bond OY OY Seven). What the
Noda B'Yehuda was referring to was the dried bladder of a treif fish
used in making some kind of a drink.

In NO way was he saying that sturgeon is a kosher fish. Its scales are NOT
kaskeset since they are of the glanoid variety and can NOT be removed
without ripping off the skin. In addition, sturgeon have black roe
(kosher fish have red), have a ventral mouth and have a heterocerclic
tail (all signs of a treif fish). BTW even the shape of kosher caviar
eggs differ than that from treif sturgeon roe.

We learn the halacha re: kaskeset from the type of armor Goliat wore in
his fight against David (it's a Rashi in Chullin, I think on 66a).

There is no posek in 300 years who ever stated that sturgeon is kosher.

CHACHAMIM HIZA'HARU B'DIVREICHEIM !

Josh

On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:45:55 +0000 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
(In reply to my comments)
>To even ask the question is to overlook all the rules of birur: rov
>(de'isa & deleisa likaman), chazaqah (demei'kara & desvara), kavu'ah,
>eidus (trei & eid echad be'issurim) , hoda'as ba'al din, shavya >alei....

This might be compared with legal rules as to admissibility of evidence
and as to the weight to be given to different types of evidence. With
hindsight we could find that a factfinder might not be right 100% of
the time but that does not make facts "illusory" to him.

KT
Eliyahu

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 01:08:33AM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
>: Rav Kalman Kahana, in his appendix to the Kitzur S"A, writes (4:8) that
>: this applies only within the "ancient borders", rather than in the new
>: city....

> Wouldn't that mean the Chashmona'i borders, rather than the crusader
> border of the area we now call the Old City?

Yes.

Rav Kahana's sefer does not go into it, but others (such as Rav
Tukachinsky's Ir Hakodesh V'Hamikdash) do, and they seem to show these
halachos as applying in most of what is now walled, plus a good deal of
the valley area to the south of it. Pretty similar to what's at the
Holyland Hotel model.

>On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 11:30:10PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>:> I was never in that situation, so I cannot say for sure, but it seems to
>:> me that one *would* have to give the Maaser Ani to a real ani in such
>:> a case. If anyone has ever asked that as a parctical shaalah, I'd love
>:> to hear the answer.
>: You're right about Maaser Ani (I am now home and have the sefer put 
>: out by the Machon l'Limud Mitzvot Ha'Tluyot Ba'Aretz)...

> But if shemittah is derabbanan, and especially if yoveil isn't in the
> shemittah cycle so that the years of shemittah today can't even possibly
> be the de'oraisa one, then how can ma'aseir ani and ma'aseir sheini be
> de'oraisa.

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about d'Oraisa vs d'Rabanan. The
reason that <<< one *would* have to give the Maaser Ani to a real ani in
such a case >>> is not because its d'Oraisa, but because it's a *vadai*.
Only by a safek can we fall back on Hamotzi MeChavero Alav Haraaya.

Reb Carl M. Sherer replied:
> : Why wouldn't that fall under ain m'vatlin issur l'chatchila?

RMB asked:
> Issur? This is heqdeish, not issur. And what if they have a non-Jew do
> it?

Most rishonim hold it is derabannan, but Ran holds it is deOraita. Everybody 
holds that most forms of bittul are assur. There is, however, disagreement 
about some rabbinicaly prohibited foodstuff. The halakhah as we rule is that 
only 'hallah of 'hutz laaretz can be mixed in lekhat'hilah. All other 
rabbinically prohibited foodstuff can either have the heter increased so that 
it could become void (e.g. gezeirot on non Jewish cheese, bishul akum, etc.) 
or not even that.

All the above is discussed in Tur&SA YD99:5. Especially consul derishah, as he 
explains the dominant position, that of Rashbah, in detail.

In conclusion, it is prohibited to throw the terumah back in order to void it. 
However, as the rules of ein mevatlim issur lekhat'hilah explain, the issur 
does become void, except that both the one who threw in the terumah and the 
one for whom it was mixed in may not eat the stuff. This is a fine to 
discourage voiding prohibited foodstuff intentionally. 

There is disagreement as to whether one may sell the stuff, and I leave it to 
fellow Ovdim to argue whether a potential purchaser of the mixture would be 
considered mi shenitbatel bishvilo. I, however, believe that it fine does not 
apply to the purchaser, as he either doesn't care or positively would have 
prefered that there had not been any voiding of terumah.

The above discussion is obviously only relevant provided there are 100 units 
of heter per unit of terumah, which means that all the terumah cann find its 
way back into the 'hullin.

Now a question: is there a diference between bitul of terumah min bemino and 
min besheeno mino? I vaguely recall that in the second case only 60 units of 
heter are required. This would, however, mean that terumah can only be voided 
by throwing it into stuff that is being processed, such jams and pastes, so 
that the eino mino will truly become eino niqar.

May be they put most of the terumah back, but leave out some, so that they 
still have more than 100 heter/terumah, and put the rest in eino mino?

Anyway, terrible practice.

[Email #2. -mi]

RMB wrote:
> Or what if they're thrown back in to their original bins in small batches?

That should work. It is explained in one of the NK on Tur or SA YD98:9. Sorry, 
no Tur+SA handy. Only works up to 1/60, but that is good enough in our case.

Arie
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

A correspondent noted to me last week that in the Bnei Machashava Tova the
Piascezner justifies those whom the Ra'avad defends as having conceived
G-d in bodily form as having done so in order to facilitate kavanah in
tefilah - the P. says that if all else fails, it is still permissible
to visualize Hashem as a merciful father sitting on a throne and one
supplicating before Him , in order to focus properly during davening
(p. 19)!!!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

[This email got misdirected to the wrong folder. Sorry for not approving
this post a week ago, when I got it. -mi]

In a message dated 6/20/02 8:00:13pm EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> On 20 Jun 2002 at 10:17, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> > See Kitzur S"A 17:4.

> Did you mean 17:3?=20

> Interesting. It implies that the kavana of the Shamayim va'Aretz and=20
> the four ruchos should davka be on the echad. Is that l'ikuva?=20

1) I pointed to S'if 4 where he says that Kavanas Zchiras Yetzias
Mitzrayim is part of Krias Shma but in the last Parsha, (this is from
the Halacha in Sofeik if one said Krias Shma).

2) WRT Echod that is hpw the Gemara says in Brochos "Hamaarich Bechod...
Keivon Damlichtei..."

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

--part1_a8.d4f597e.2a43c6cb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2>In a message dated 6/20/0=
2 8:00:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-=
LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">On 20 Jun 2002 at 10:17, Yz=
kd@aol.com wrote:
<BR>&gt; See Kitzur S"A 17:4.
<BR>
<BR>Did you mean 17:3?=20
<BR>
<BR>Interesting. It implies that the kavana of the Shamayim va'Aretz and=20
<BR>the four ruchos should davka be on the echad. Is that l'ikuva?=20
<BR>
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>1) I pointed to S'if 4 where he says that Kavanas Zchiras Yetzias Mitzra=
yim is part of =A0Krias Shma but in the last Parsha, (this is from the Halac=
ha in Sofeik if one said Krias Shma).
<BR>
<BR>2) WRT Echod that is hpw the Gemara says in Brochos "Hamaarich Bechod...=
 Keivon Damlichtei..."
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>Kol Tuv,=20
<BR>Yitzchok Zirkind</FONT></HTML>

--part1_a8.d4f597e.2a43c6cb_boundary--

In a message dated 6/27/02 5:08:55pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> 1- Tzitzis - O"Ch 8:8 (Although I asked why not the pasuq.)
> 2- Tefillin - O"Ch 25:5
> 3- Succah - MB (early in the discussion of succah)
> 4- Tefillah - the only R' Chaim on Hil' Tefillah

The source for the first 3 as a seperate category is the Bach Reish Hilchos 
Sukka 628.

WRT Tfila in S"A Horav O"C 60:5 he combines Krias Shma and Tfila that require 
Kavan of Kabalas Oyl Malchus Shomayim (L'ikuva), (see also S"A Horav 
475:28-29 489:12).

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/20/02 8:44:15pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Qeri'as Shema tzerikhah kavanah. Is that kavanah to be yotzei, or the
> kavanah of yichud and/or malchus HQBH?

To see the S"A Horav on this issue, please point your browser to:
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/kavanahShema.pdf>

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/19/02 4:11:36pm EDT, yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU writes:
> Why is Hil. Nidah in Tur/SA Yoreh De`ah when, one would think, it more
> properly belongs in Even ha-`Ezer?

In addition one could add why he places Hil. Ribis in YD and not (as the 
Rambam) in CM.

<snip>
> If you say that Nidah is a matter of Isur ve-Heter, and such is the
> ordering principle in Yoreh Deah, how does one explain Hil Kibud Av
> ve-Em; Talmud Torah, Tsedakah, Avelut, etc? Once you admit of exceptions
> to the rule, why not place Nidah together with other rules relevant
> to Ishut even if they don't have isur ve-heter issues? If you say the
> first two thirds of YD is isur ve-heter issues and the last third only
> "miscellaneous" ones, why does, say, Kilayim break into that -- it should
> belong to the first two thirds? 

> Why is Avelut placed last-- this seems
> to follow exactly Rambam's ordering of Avelut to Sefer Shoftim, where
> it seems out of place as well?

The Rambam in his Hakdama to Mishna Torah writes why he placed it in Shoftim 
because of it's connection of Kvurah Boi Bayom.

And if so the question could be asked why the Tur didn't put it in CM at the 
end where he deals with issues of life and death.

<snip>
> And
> it's clear, at least to me, that Rambam (and the mishnah) is serving
> as some form of organizing model for the Tur. [BTW, while we normally
> consider YD vol 2 and EH vol 3 of the Tur/SA, it seems clear to me (so
> much so that Im sure everyone else already knows this) that YD actually
> should be vol 3:

The problem with the above is that the Tur in his Hakdama to CM enumerates 
the 4 Turim and places YD as 2nd and EH as 3rd.

<snip>
> The only "problem"
> with this is that the Tur, in organizing YD, has completely switched the
> order of Sefer Kedushah of the MT: whereas Rambam has 1) Isurei Biah;
> 2) Ma'akhalot Asurot; 3) Shehitah -- the Tur has Yoreh Deah beginning
> with Shehitah, then a few which would come under "maakhalot asurot"
> and only then nidah??? Why the change?]

In general the Tur differs from the Rambam (who BTW differs from the Seder of 
the Mishna which he himself explains in his Hakdama to Pirush Hamishnayos), 
in that he brings only Halochos that are relevant (as he writes in his 
Hakdama) as such even when he does bring Halochos it is brought in a Seder 
that is Shoveh Lchol Nefesh (this is an argument the Rambam makes WRT 
Mishna), therefore he begins Al Seder Hayom (and furthermore in a persons 
mind the day begins in the morning, hence he begins with Hashkamas Haboker, 
even though that Lhalacha the day begins at night), he also brings therefore 
Bkitzur Hil. Talmud Torah (even though he has more details in YD) and Hil. 
Masa Umatan (even though more details are in YD and CM), and Hil. Tznius 
(even though more details are in EH). After he finishes with the Seder Hayom 
he elaborates on certain lengthy issues but also deal with day to day life as 
such he begins in YD with the more Shava Lchol Nefesh which is food (and he 
uses basically the Seder of Miseches Chulin), and continues until he comes to 
wine which brings issues of AZ in the middle of issues of AZ he brings in 
Ribis as to a Goy one is permitted as he begins Hil. Ribis, then Nidah which 
ends with Mikvo'ohs which continues into Tvilas Keilim which brings us back 
to the beginning of Hechsher Keilim, he then goes on to things that are 
rearer until death R"L.  He then he goes into EH which mostly involves 
marriage which is (mostly) a one time issue, (although he also includes Ervos 
and Yichud, etc.). Then he concludes with Choshen Mishpat which many Halochos 
require Beis Din and are rear, less Shava Lchol Nefesh (even though here too 
there are many Halochos Nogeia daily).

> <snip>
> After all, the
> Tur doesnt feel bound to Rambam's class details elsewhere: for example,
> whereas Rambam has Hil Tefilin/Mezuzah/Sefer Torah, Tsitsit and Milah
> [wouldnt Milah make more sense in Hil Aku"m or Teshuvah BTW?] nearly
> all together in Ahavah, Tur breaks them up so that Tefilin and Tsistit
> go to OH and Milah, ST and Mezuzah go to YD.

Based on the above it is understood why the distinction between Tfilin
(part of the daily routine) vs. the others), although it still needs
explanation as to why he put the Tziur of the letters in OC he could have
put it in YD, likewise Milah is not part of the regular daily routine
(and he does mention in the appropriate places what to do Byom Sheyesh
Bo Mila).

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive answer, rather as an
opening point for Dibuk Chaveirim.

BTW in nany Turim the Hakdama to YD is missing.

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/5/02 9:51:24pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> What about ribui umi'ut?
...
> There are only two derashos that could be applied by two communities that
> weren't in contact and produce the same results: qal vachomer, and ad
> sheyavo hakasuv hashelishi.

> In fact, for these two, the question is why they are midos of derashah,
> and not forms of sevarah.
...

AISI,

Ribui and Miut and Es etc. are from the Rabbi Akiva School The 13 middos
WE know and love are from the Rabbi Yishmael School

E.g.: ribui miut ribbui is R Akiva's alternate view of klal prat uklal -
iirc from perek murubah.

Remember many rules are formulations of categories that can be grouped
together differenly. So Albo's 3 ikkarim in many ways can be seen to
imply all of Rambam's 13. IOW they hsare the same bottom line pretty
much but use a different way of categorizing.

All of the above begs the more fundamental question, which came first
the Halachah or the Midrash?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]