Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 143

Tuesday, April 8 2003

• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: Karaim
• Re: gilgul
• Request for Sources: Toras Habayyis on Issur Hametz
• Ta'ruvas Hametz
• Otzar Peirushim ve-Tziurim
• Re: Karaim
• Malbim on Shir haShirim
• On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Re: oral and written traditions
• Oral and Written Traditions
• Re: Oral and written traditions

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:32:48AM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: I'm still confused a bit as to how Rav Schachter distingues as to 
: A) when a minhag/masorah is correctly over-turned - such as when rebbe
: did it,
: and 
: b) when a Masorah is enshrined by klal Yisrael, and is therefore
: irreversible

A link to RHS's article that probably has a
greater shelf-life than that already posted is
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html>.
(No reference to "this week" in the URL.)

However, RHS is quite clear and the majority of his article is on
that subject. It boils down to:
   Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position,
   accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend
   itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages,
   chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
   to Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the
   fact that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel.

I would suggest following his citation to Nefesh haRav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 01:14:29AM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: The 13 ikkarim are the usual litmus Test for Geirim

Also for stam yeinam.

It's NOT simply kelapei chutz.

The rest of your post therefore doesn't follow, IMHO.

-mi

RMLevin wrote:
> I would like to contribute to this topic that many ancients, people with
> impeccable credentials as thinkers, believed in gilgul. So did Pythagoras,
> so did Plato. Plate actually mentions gilgul into animals.

> Source. Dov Ber Pinson, Reincarnation and Judaism: The Journey of the
> Soul; Meditation and Judaism, Jason Aronson

I am familiar with Plato's writings on the subject and find them quite
troublesome. Plato does not arrive at gilgulim by much reason. Rather,
it is his belief in the nature of the soul that prompts him to state
that gilgulim exist. Ayen sham. In fact, it is on his belief in gilguulim
and the nature of the soul that he builds his Republic, even though this
only becomes apparent at the end.

What is furthermore troublesome, is that there seems no obvious way to
make Plato indebted to Jewish tradition for this idea of his.

So we have here an idea which seems to have a non Jewish origin and is
later widely read and spread around throughout the Western world. This
idea is not argued rationally, but merely believed. Then, at some point
in the history of the world, Jewish sources start speaking of a similar
idea of gilgul. Don't you find this a bit fishy?

If the idea were rationally argued, it could be considered a universal
philosophical tradition. If the idea had been published very early on
in Jewish sources, we could have argued for either Plato being indebted
to us, or the idea having been transmitted independently.

The only defence of gilgulim I can come up with is that the matter
was so obvious to the ancients that nobody bothered to deal with it
(weak argument). It's main appeal seems to be that over generations,
reward and retribution is just. This matter does not seem to me to be
worthy of hiding it among sitrei Torah. On the contrary, it should be told
to the masses, so that they don't lose faith in difficult times. Ergo,
I don't buy the argument that for many generations this was hidden from
the masses and thus also withheld from key Jewish written works.

May be in a next lifetime I'll find out what's the matter here :-).

Arie
-- 
If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

I am trying to find out if the Rahsba's Toras Habbayyis deals with the
Issur o Ta'aruvas Hametz on Pesach and so far I haven't found anything.


Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
<RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

SA, and others pasken that Erev Pesach, Haetmz al ydie Ta'aroves is
Bateil beshishim {or benosein Ta'am if you prefer}

Rambam holds that the issur of Hametz al Pesach is bemashehu due to the
fact it is davar sheyeish lo mattirim

Question:  How can Hametz be battil on Erev Pesach.
Answer: MB/Bei'ur Halachah notes, ein hachi nami, SA must hold NOT like
the Rambam Otherwise he could not say this.

Q: How would the Rambam himself have held? Was his reason of Davar
sheyiesh lo Matirim the only reaso Hametz is not battil on Pesach or
was he being lav davka

And im timtze leimor Davka, is ther perhaps a bit of lamdus that will
allow the Rambam to be mevatile Hametiz benosein Taa'm on Erev Pesach
even leshitaso?

Note: I have a hypotehsis that might work for the Rambam...

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

There is an excellent haggadah available online - JD Eisenstein's
Otzar Peirushim ve-Tziurim. There are three volumes in one PDF.
The first volume (64 pages) has a haggadah with some peirush and a lot
of good pictures. The second volume (257 pages) has the commentaries
of Abarbanel, Machzor Vitri, Kol Bo, Shibbole HaLeket, Avudraham,
(pseudo-?)Maharal, Alshich, Shelah, Yaavetz, and Gra on the Haggadah.
The third volume (30 pages) has essays on various topics relevant to
Pesach based on midrash, halachah, history, etc. including an overview
of Shir HaShirim.

<http://www.hebrewbooks.org/getsefer.asp?booknum=520>

Gil Student

In a message dated 4/7/2003 5:54:39 PM EDT, gil@aishdas.org writes:
>>IOW they dealt with a definite list of heresies that were prevalent
>>at his time to wit:
>>Karraism {and Tzadukkism in a way}
>>Islam
>>Xtianity

> RYBS has an interesting take on this in an essay on Mesiras Nefesh in
> Divrei Hashkafah. He says that the gentiles have this way of finding
> the essence of Judaism. While Rambam was only responding to gentile
> criticisms, the criticisms were right on target.
> 

I understand that RYBS opposed saying Yigdal. The Shelah like it but
the Ari did not
One criticism is that the Yigdal did not capture the Rambam's details. ein
hachi nami. As a poem it is being general, it is not a work of analysis
it is a peotical affirmation

Another criticism of Yigdal has to do with the 13 iikkarim not being
complete as is.

AISI, this may be true, but they are not the exahustive list of Ikkarim
but just the ones that make Judaism different than other sects.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

> how does the Malbim understand
> "ein Mikro yotzei miday Pehsuto? as applied to Shir Hashirim?
> 
> And presuming the above Malbim is correct -
> Shouldn't somebody amongst our Rabbanim have been gozeir against reading
> Shir Hashirim in public lest the simple minded take it literally?
> I mean I cannot think of a bigger michshol to the rabbim to simply read
> this story. Better to put it off limits - no?

Malbim maintains that at straighforward level, it is about Shlomo's
prophetic experiences.

The view that it is wrong to read Shir haShirim as a secular poem is
universal in Hazal. For a contemporary formulation, see note 1 or 2 in R.
Soloveitchik's U-Vikkashtem, where he treats this as a matter of strict
interpretive tradition.

Most religious people have no difficulty understanding that sexual
imagery has a role in trying to communicate religious experience. That
is why there is no need to prohibit reading Shir haShirim. Nonetheless
there WAS a debate on the subject among Hazal. (See Shabbat 30, Avot
dRabbi Nathan 1, inter alia.)

If one is genuinely concerned about misinterpretation, one should not
read Humash, where G-d is depicted as having a body. The Targumim are
careful to render these passages in non-corporeal terms, just as the
Targum of Shir haShirim does.

Not having studied the Beur on Shir haShirim I don't know what Malbim
is referring to.

> E.G. How would Rav Schachter view the Maharm Mirothenbug's suggestions
> that in an Ir Shekullo Kohanim a woman SHOULD be called. I can think
> of at least 3 ways to view this: 1) the Maharam was wrong to break
> with tradition 2) the Maharam did not break with Tradition, but in
> extenuating circumstances allowed an exception to the kavod hatzibbur
> rule to be made 3) the Maharam de facto has shown that Kavod Hatzibbur
> is not an opbstacel that is impossible to overcome...
> I hate to speak for someone else, especially someone so much greater
> than I, but I think it is a davar pashut that RHS will answer #2.

Teinach the Maharam, but if you expand R' Wolpoe's idea, the problem is
the piece begs the question: when is something a chiddush and when is it
a shinuy? What is the reasoning for choosing #2 over #1 or #3? IOW:
Before reading RHS, we all knew some changes to mesorah have historically
been accepted and others have not. RHS created labels - acceptable
changes are labelled chiddush, unacceptable changes are labelled shinuy.
But mai kah mashma lan - I still don't know what criteria to use in new
case X, Y or Z to determine if it is a shinuy or a chiddush.

Even within the examples given in the piece, things seems confusing, e.g.
Rebbe overturned the practice of teruma in Beit Shean because "the
prevalent practice was simply based on an error" and hence he was being
mechadesh, not making a shinuy. However, with regard to the Geonim's
count of shmita years, "although Rambam thought that this does not
make any sense," which I assume is the same as saying it was an error,
"he said that this practice should nonetheless be followed because
masorah is most crucial in determining what the halacha should be."
Why use mesorah to override error in the latter case but not the former?

It also sounds like the 2 categories are static - "The centuries-old
practice has established the halacha in an irreversible manner."
Aren't there practices which at first were regarded as unacceptable
shinuy and rejected, and as years go by are absorbed into mainstream?
To take an example (and it might be a bad one): the GR"A would not eat
meat labelled "chassidishe schechita" (I mean because of the knife, not
the chassid), yet today it is practically standard. The shinuy became
a chiddush, no? The common denominator between many of the examples is
"it could have been done in the past, but...", e.g. by megilla "This
idea of writing a megillah in translation could have been implemented
centuries ago, but never was. We ought to assume that there must be a
good halachic reason why this was never done," and by kohanim attending
medical school, "Rav Moshe Feinstein published a teshuva pointing out
that this rabbi's suggestion could have been implemented centuries
ago, but never was." Even if you grant that line of reasoning (aside:
the synthesis of Jewish and secular learning in a higher educational
institution might have been implemented centuries ago, but wasn't; the
notion of establishing an independent government in Eretz Yisrael might
have been considered centuries ago, etc. - are we to dismiss these ideas
as shinuy? Just wondering...) to be fair to those advocating women's
aliyot, the ideas could never have been implemeted or even considered in
the past because social considerations were not ripe. It is only because
we live in times where women have a more public social role that the
whole question comes into play.

-Chaim

RRW:
>: b) when a Masorah is enshrined by klal Yisrael, and is therefore
>: irreversible

<snip>

MI
> However, RHS is quite clear and the majority of his article is on
> that subject. It boils down to:
>   Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position,
>   accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend
>   itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages,
>   chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
>   to Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the
>   fact that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel.

Corect me where I am wrong but this sounds
Sounds a lot like Catholic Israel

[Email #2. -mi]

Rav Schachter
<<Years ago, a prominent rabbi in Eretz Yisrael came up with an
original idea as to how to permit Kohanim to go to medical school
(i.e., to come in contact with meisim (corpses)).Rav Moshe Feinstein
published a teshuva pointing out that this rabbi's suggestion could have
been implemented centuries ago, but never was. Therefore we must assume
that there must be some good explanation as to why the suggestion is not
correct. (Indeed, in my sefer - B'Ikvei HaTzon - I have published what I
consider quite a reasonable rebuttal.) And even if Eliyahu Hanavi were
to appear and express his opinion in favor of this rabbi's notion, Rav
Moshe thinks we would not even follow him on this matter (Igros Moshe,
Y.D. 3:155). A matter of halacha which has been accepted for centuries
can not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was
an error involved from the very outset. >>

What about koahinm visting the grave of the rebbe whilst surrounded by
a box?

The heter has a theoretical Halachic basis, but as a Minhag that has
not had a Mesoarh - at leats as far as I know

BTW, see the very first halachah in SA/YD and the Shach there re: lo
ro'inu eino raya

Also: <<In general, masorah plays a most important role in establishing
the halacha. Ramabam writes that in his opinion, we ought to not simply
establish every seventh year as a shemittah year, but rather must have
fifty-year cycles, with the 7th, 14th, 21st, etc. years observed as
shemittah, and the fiftieth year being blank. (The special mitzvos of
yoveil, the fiftieth year, only apply when the majority of the world
Jewish population is located in Eretz Yisrael). However, the Rambam
(Hilchos Shemittah V'Yovel, 10:5) continues to say, that the Geonim
who lived in Eretz Yisrael and observed the laws of shemittah, clearly
followed the practice of simply observing every seventh year as shemittah,
and did not leave the fiftieth year blank. Although Rambam thought
that this does not make any sense, he said that this practice should
nonetheless be followed because masorah is most crucial in determining
what the halacha should be. We ought to assume that there certainly must
be some good explanation for this practice, even though Rambam thought
it did not make any sense at all. >>

According to my shita we can overturn something in lamdus w/o implications
to Halachah

Accodring to Micha's shita, that lamdus is NOT academic but practical
why did the Rambam NOT overrule the Gaonim. Rif over-ruled Gaonim re:
many minhaggim in EY, and I saw taht in Yated Ne'eman ther was a whole
machlokes about blowing shofar on Shabbas bemakom BD that the Rif sought
to revive and was about to be revived by other poskim the 19th century
and they did NOT give deference to precedent!


[Email #3. -mi]

<<Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old halachic position,
accepted and observed universally by all of Klal Yisroel, does not lend
itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even encourages,
chiddush, but not for shinui (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According to
Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact
that it was universally accepted by all of Klal Yisroel. >>

So what about Kitniyos which is NOT universal?
Can we rely upon Sephardic Masorah to be mevateil this minhag?

And if we cannot rely upon Sephardic Minhag, how come the ommission
of Tefillin on Chol Hamoed which at one time was universal worn by
Ashkenazim?

[Email #4. -mi]

<<The Tosefta (Megillah Chap. 3) records that theoretically, a woman
should be permitted to get an aliyah (to the Torah), however the Rabbis
did not allow this because of kvod hatzibbur. This has clearly been the
universal practice in Klal Yisroel for close to two thousand years. >>

SA/YD 1:1: Lo Ra'inu eino raya re: Women doing Shechita

[Email #5 -mi]

<< Let the men run the government. Let the men offer the korbanot in the
Temple. Let the men serve as chazzan for the public prayer, and let the
men read from the Torah in public. If we simply do not have any other
choice, we would call upon women to run the government and read from the
Torah. But if a woman were to run the government or read from the Torah,
this would indicate that we had no choice in the matter, that from all
of the men present we were unable to get enough of them to take care of
these activities. This creates a problem of kavod hatzibbur. >>

re: <<kavod hatzibbur.>>
And which wins - Masorah or dikduk?

AIUI it is k'VOD tzibbur because semichus puts a shava under the kaf
not a pattach

And I corrected some who use KIRUV instead of Keiruv. Keiruv is correct
al pi dikduk.

I once worked with a chareidi woman. I asked her if she said Modeh ani
or Modah ani. She reacted that Modah ani would be some kind of chiddush
breaking tradition etc. IOW she was not chosheish for dikduk...

Aside from the Dikduk issue, is SHE breaking with Tradition by using
a Masculine construct when she is after all only a woman and thereby
usurping a role that does not belong to her?!

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

In a message dated 4/8/2003 11:42:01 AM EDT, Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu writes:
> At least we agree that the modern halachic process has been done in...

I think one of the problems is the mixing together of systems that use
different underlying premises.

At the risk of grossy oversimplifying, I witness Ashkenazim using Classic
Ashkenazi Analysis on Sephardic sources and come up with Chidusshim that
were inferred by these Acharonim but not likely implied by those Rishonim.

The Classic Sephardic approach of the Rif, Ri Migash, Rambam, v'sayassom
looks at the authority of sources one way.

Tosafos, v'sayossom, OTOH looks at sources another way. Once we take
rules formulated by E.G. the Rambam, and apply them to sources and
show how Tosafos is wrong the inevtiable upshot is to change Halachah.
E.G. Tosafos take on Gmara and Mayyim Acharonim.

While I will readily concede the rules for Halachic process have
never been quite so simple, so cut and dry, the problem today is about
forgetting underlying premises and never getting to the meta-shita that
produces a given Halachah.

I will BEH post on women reading Megillah. It is very clear to me that
the straight read of the Gmara, and the Rambam and the first voice of
the Mehcabeir in SA that women are on the same madreigga as men re:
reading the Megillah.

Ashkenazim, following the 2nd voice of Tosafos based upon the Tosefta
and Behag - {BTW 2 classic sources for ignoring a given Bavli} have
quite a different approach. The mish-mash begins with the SA who brings
down this dei'ah as a yeish omrim. Now the mechabeir himself is being
chosheish for Minhag Ashkenaz perhaps w/o realizing it because he does
not do so for say kitniyos.

Lu mistefina: I would suggest the following. Firsty learn Gmara with
Gaonim and poskim up until a certain era - say The Rambam on the one
side and say Tsoafos on the other and forget about later Rishonim and
acharonim and see how that system works.

THEN check out the late rishonim through the Beis Yosef and Darchie Moshe,
including Hagahos Maimiyos, Me'iri, Ritva etc.

Then keep on going and see how the system beings to unravel - at least
AISI.


This kind of proves a rule of Halachic entropy

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>
The above post is dedicate to the Memory of My Mom 
Gertrude Wolpoe OBM, Gittel Bas Nachum Mendel Halevi A"H

Response to Reb Meir Shinnar #1:
>The notion that the shakla vetarya of the amoraim is radically different
>in methodology (rather than in authority) than ours (legislative versus
>interpretive, as RYGB writes) would be unknown to the rambam, who holds
>for a seamless transition - the mere difference is that post talmudic
>authorities have only local relevance, and have accepted the corpus
>of the talmud - but the methodology remains the same. The legislative
>period is that of the sanhedrin. The chasimas hatalmud is not the end
>of the legislative period, but the end of universally accepted hora'ot -
>quite a different animal.

"Mere" difference?! The universal kabbalah did not occur in a vacuum! It 
recognized the end of an era and the tectonic shift. While it is true that 
the Sanhedrin - the period of which continued into the Amoraic times - was 
the legislative body, the early interpretive - and, legislative by dint of 
acceptance - period was a seamless continuation of that process. "Sof 
horo'oh" is not "Sof kabbolas ha'horo'os," but "Sof horo'oh." V'duk.

>Do you have a source for this amazing hiddush?

Several. But I fail to understand why the Gemara in Bava Metzia, R' Sherira 
Gaon and the Rambam do not suffice.

>If one holds by the rambam's official position about the value of post gmara
>precedent, then the accurate preservation of the tradition of what rav Hai
>gaon, say, actually held and said is irrelevant - as the issue is whether
>his arguments are convincing, rather than that rav Hai gaon said them.
>Whether or not they actually reproduce precisely his arguments is
>irrelevant, as what is important is not who said the position, but whether
>it is intrinsicaly valid and convincing.  By this position, oral and written
>traditions have equal weight, as their sole value is conveying an approach -
>but whether we accept it or not depends on whether we are convinced by the
>approach.

Correct - to a point. Were the arguments conveyed orally with the psak, 
that would be as effective as a transmission in writing.

>I would argue that to the extent that one bases one's psak on the
>authority of the NY, whether it is an oral tradition, a stam written
>psak, a detailed written tshuva, or a record of an oral tradition in
>a later book is moot, as long as the oral traditions are reliable.
>If one is basing one's psak purely on the "ra'ayos and shakla v'tarya
>that could be tested by logic and debate", then the fact that it was
>the NY rather than an anomynous sefer or psak should be irrelevant,
>and the question then isn't whether the tradition is written or oral,
>but merely how convincing the arguments are.

I disagree. Knowing the NbY ate sturgeon is not material - perhaps it was a 
different fish with a similar name, perhaps it was an error, etc. At best, 
it would remain an interesting curiousity.

>I don't have the time to research this now, but (from recollection)
>think that many poskim do use oral traditions (off hand, RH Schachter
>uses oral traditions from RYBS, the bne banim uses oral traditions from
>his grandfather, and many poskim cite experience and tradition conveyed
>from their teachers) (although, of course, once written down, they become
>written - but the written tradition is one of writing down previous oral
>traditions). Od hazon lemo'ed, but this statement is extraordinary

Thanks for the compliment. Traditions - especially from RYBS and similar 
oft-"quoted" sources - are indeed only as valid as the transmitter.

>The SE viewed the oral tradition of those psakim as legitimate. Whether to
>accept for himself the psak of RDZH and R Hildesheimer required applied
>lomdus - but the oral tradition was accepted.

As a springboard...

>Rishonim transmit in writing oral traditions from the past. The power
>and validity of the statement is not from the compiler, but from the
>original author of the oral tradition.

Nope.

...
>If I were to write down all my oral traditions, it would suddenly achieve
>a new status jsut because it was published??

Nope - only with reasoning.

*****

Response to Reb David Riceman:
>Like RMS I find this surprising.  The validation by writing is b'dieved, not
>l'chatchila.  Did you, for example, fail to refer us to RSZA's psaq that you
>should go to college on the grounds that it was unwritten? Or does that 
>psaq have
>only your authority (since you wrote it down), and not RSZA's (which casts the
>whole discussion of "who is a gadol" in a new light)?

It only has my authority. You (and perhaps even I) have no idea if it may 
be particular or universal, and therefore cannot extrapolate except to the 
extent that you trust (or distrust) me.

>Recheck that reference to tshuvoth haRama: R. Shalom Shachna refused to 
>publish
>(or even to permit students to make private copies) of his psaqim.

Perhaps. This is one drop in the vast ocean.

*****

Response to Reb Rich Wolpoe:
>>>Also, RMF seems to reverse the Bavli re: burial on YT Shinei by invoking
>>>chillul YT as a concern - af al pi that the Bavli asserts that legabei
>>>Meisim YT sheini is considered kechol...

>> Do you really believe that RMF reversed a BAVLI?!
...
>If Rabbi X says that the gmara re: burying on YT is not applicable due
>to modern day refrigeration, the Torah world would be up in arms.

>RMF says it and it gets a pass.

>Tell me here and now Rabbi YGB, of all the Torah-based and Kabblistic
>reasons for not delaying a levaya that have nothing to do with the
>deterioration of the body! I'm sure you can come up with many more than
>I can, and I can think of a few myself.
...
>Point! We are not interested in the methodology of how a Halachah is
>derived but WHO says it. This of course obviates the need for a concept
>of Toe'h bidvar Mishanh which becomes impossible in this system.

Excuse me, I am in utter shock. Because RMF does, b'rov gadluso, claim
to understand the Gemara, you claim to understand it better and therefore
conclude that he reversed the Bavli?!

And, of course, you know as well as I do that we do not pasken on the
basis of Kabbalah.

And I imagine you know that the Gemara itself limits burial on Yom Tov
where there are countervailing issues.

Your assertion is staggering.

>If Chassimas Hatalmud is the last word, then kfiyyas hamitta would
>still be a chiyyuv for an an aveil, and kitniyuos and bigamy would be
>still be optional for Ashkenazim!

Aveilus is mostly minhagim, and no ra'ayos can be brought from minhagim.

Kitniyos and bigamy are still options. You will end up in cherem, that's
all :-) .

Chasimas Ha'Talmud IS the last word. Beyond that there can only be
chumros :-) . (There are.)

*****

Response to RMS #2:

>There is some validation in the standing of the student, in authenticating
>the tradition as valid.  After all, the issue in all traditions, both
>written and oral, is that they may be erroneous, either deliberately or
>unintentionally.  However, the notion that the status of the tradition is
>inherently dependent  on the transmitter, rather than on the originator, is
>another tremendous hidush that RYGB brings, and I wonder the source for
>this.  eg, RSBA - if the kesav sofer brings down an oral tradition from the
>hatam sofer, would you view it as from the kesav sofer or the hatam sofer??
>It would seem that they maintain the status of oral torah, as recorded by
>the talmid.

You may trust the KS that the CS said it - but you are ultimately trusting 
the KS and the authentication that a ruling of the KS provides.

>Again, what is suprising is that a position that not only I, but others
>more notable than I, find strange and in direct opposition to the normal
>understanding of the heter to write torah shebealpe, is argued forcefully
>without a single source being cited as if it is pashut. Can you cite
>anyone who argues explicitly as you do?

I do not know offhand of a source for my position. You will have to argue 
against me qua me :-) .


Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerushalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

On 8 Apr 2003 at 9:47, David Riceman wrote:
> "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
>>  certain traditions that are
>> preserved in writing by students are then part of the corpus - but,
>> interestingly, primarily validated by the standing of the student,
>> not the master!

> Like RMS I find this surprising. The validation by writing is
> b'dieved, not l'chatchila. Did you, for example, fail to refer us to
> RSZA's psaq that you should go to college on the grounds that it was
> unwritten? Or does that psaq have only your authority (since you wrote
> it down), and not RSZA's (which casts the whole discussion of "who is
> a gadol" in a new light)?

I don't think that RSZA was paskening in favor of college generally - 
only in R. Yosef's specific case. 

And this seems to lead to one of the biggest problems in relying on a
psak that was not written down by the posek (IMHO): the risk that a psak
that was intended for a specific person in a specific situation will be
taken as a general psak for all.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

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


[ 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         ]