Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 125

Monday, March 22 2004

• sunset and candle lighting
• Re: Zemanim (was: Ikkarim of dwarves)
• Is Shapiro's book "Limits of Orthodox Theology" academically flawed?
• Ikkarim
• Re: FW: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• RE: FW: Ikkarim of Dwarves/ Marc Shapiro's New Book
• spinoza
• rishonim psak
• RMS and the RAMBAM re: the last Eight P'sukim of the Torah
• zemanim
• Re: Mordechai was also called Pesachya
• Re: The Chait HaEgel - Worshipping God in Our Own Way?
• The Beis Medrash of Rabbi Akiva

> Similar dinim apply to chanukah candles where many poskim advise
> lechatchila to light candles shortly after physical sunset which is too
> early according SA (Rabbenu Tam and many other rishonim).

<<Actually, the Shulchan Aruch explicitly says that one should light
immediately after sunset (OC 672).>>

but sunset in the Shulchan Arukh means RT sunset not physical sunset so
according to SA chanukah candles should be lit fairly late

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/21/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> See YD 266:9, and Shach 266:11. The Mechaber very clearly rules that
> bein hashmashot starts immediately after sunset, not nearly an
> hour later, as he ruled in hilchot Shabbat.

While the Shakh does take that side, I don't see it in the Mechaber.
The word used is "mishetishka," which is just the word that is used by R'
Yehudah in the beraita quoted on Shabbat 34b, and understood by Rabeinu
Tam to be referring to a later time, when the sun has already gone below
the horizon a while ago. In fact, the Ba'al ha'Itur (Sha'ar shelishi --
Hilkhot Milah 51b), whom the Mechaber is quoting here, quite explicitly
adopts that understanding of "mishetishka."

> Actually, the Shulchan Aruch explicitly says that one should
> light immediately after sunset (OC 672).

What evidence is there that "im sof sheki'atah" refers to when the disc
goes below the horizon?

--D.C.

In his recent monograph "The Limits of Orthodox Theology", Dr. Marc
Shapiro writes that he is an "intellectual historian" who is searching
for the truth and hopes to persuade "talmudists who at best merely
dabble" in theology that the Rambam's 13 principles "were not regarded as
authoritative either before his time or afterwards" [see the concluding
chapter].

My concern is that Shapiro has omitted relevant information and in some
cases misrepresented or even distorted the sources. Three illustrative
examples will be presented below.

Chapter 7 entitled "Revelation of Torah" deals with the eighth principle
-- that the Torah was divinely revealed from G-d to Moshe. Moshe himself
transmitted it accurately from G-d, and no subsequent prophet, sage or
editor had the right to tamper with it.

Before we look at Shapiro's conclusions, some sources from the
authoritative Babylonian Talmud are in order (please see the original
for the precise text).

[1] Sanhedrin Perek Chelek Mishna 1: All Israel has a share in the
world to come as it says [Is. IX. 21]: "And thy people-they will all
be righteous, for ever shall they possess the land, the sprout of my
planting, the work of my hands, that I may glorify myself." The following
have no share in the world to come: He who says that there is no allusion
in the Torah concerning resurrection, and he who says that the Torah
was not given by Heaven, and an Apikoros.

[2] TB Sanhedrin 99a: There is another Beraitha: "He hath despised the
word of G-d" means somebody who says that the Torah was not given by
Heaven, and even if he says that the Torah is given by Heaven, with the
exception of this verse, which was stated not by the Holy One Blessed
be He, but by Moses on his own, this too is an instance of "He hath
despised the word of G-d". And moreover if he says that the whole Torah
is by Heaven except such and such a dikduk, such a kal-vachomer, or such
an analogy of expression, this too is an instance of despising the word
of the Lord. [Quoted by the Rif and the Rosh, and also quoted lehalacha
at least twice in the Shulchan Aruch as explained by the commentaries].

[3] TB Baba Basra 15a: There is a Beraitha in accordance with him who
said that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua;
namely "And Moses the servant of the Lord died" [Deut. xxxvi. 5]. Is it
possible that Moses himself should have written 'and he died'? Therefore
it must be said that up to this verse Moses wrote, and from this
verse forward Joshua wrote. So said R. Joshua, according to others
R. Nehemiah. Said R. Simeon to him: Is it possible that the Holy Scrolls
should not have been complete to the last letter; does it not say "Take
this book of the law" [ibid., xxxi. 26]. Therefore, we must say that up to
this verse the Holy One, blessed be He, dictated, and Moses repeated and
wrote it down; and from this verse forward He dictated, and Moses with
tears in his eyes wrote it down; as thus it is says "Then said Baruch
unto them, With his mouth did he utter clearly all these words unto me,
and I wrote them in the book with ink" [Jer. xxxvi. 18]. According to
whom, then, is the following--that R. Joshua b. Aba, in the name of
R. Gidel, quoting Rav, said: "The last eight verses of the Pentateuch,
when read from the Holy Scrolls, must be read by one person without any
interruption"? Should it not be in accordance with R. Simeon? It may
be also in accordance with R. Simeon; and the reason for the exception
of these eight verses is because, as there was already a change at the
writing by Moses (as said above), the change is made also here. [Note
that even R. Yehuda agrees that everything in the Torah was written by
Moshe except the last 8 verses.]

[4] Megilla 2b: The double letters in the Hebrew alphabet--Mem, Nun,
Zadik, Pe, Kaph--the prophets have added. Is this possible? Is it not
written [Lev. xxvii. 34]: "These are the commandments"; from which
we infer these are the commandments, and no prophet has the power to
innovate any new matter? And furthermore, did not R. Hisda say that the
Mem (when it is the last letter of the word) and Samekh (which is round),
which were chased through the tables of Moses, were held in only by a
miracle? This is so, but it was not before known which letter must be in
the middle of the word and which at the end; and the prophets ordained
that the open one should be at the middle and the closed one final. But
even that much had they then the right to do? Therefore we must say
that it was forgotten and the prophets only restored them. [Thus a post
Mosaic prophet did not even have the right to tamper with the letters
of the Torah].

Shapiro's treatment of this seminal issue appears thorough. Chapter 7 is
impressively decorated with 191 footnotes, and has all the appearances
of impeccable scholarship, although, as far as I can see, he omits to
discuss the highly relevant source [4] which according to the Mesores
Hashas is also to be found in Shabbos, Yoma and Temura.

-- The Tzioni and Rebbe Yehuda Hachasid -- 

In Chapter 7, page 110 Shapiro writes:

<<Returning to R. Judah Hehasid, in addition to pointing to post
Mosaic additions, he makes another fascinating remark [in a recently
discovered manuscipt]. Commenting on Numbers 12:17 ('Then sang Israel
this song'), he claims that the 'song' referred to is the 'Great Hallel'
(Psalm 136). It was only in a later generation that King David removed it
from the Pentateuch, together with all the other anonymous psalms witten
by Moses, and placed them in the book of Psalms... Significantly, both
R. Avigdor Katz and the fifteenth century kabbalist R. Menahem Zioni, who
cites R. Judah Hahasid, quote this opinion without a hint of objection.>>

Shapiro omits to inform us of the objections of R. Moshe Feinstein zt"l to
this understanding of R. Judah Hahasid [IM YD 3, 114]. R. Moshe in fact
held that R. Judah Hahasid could never have written what is attributed
to him, and the manuscript thus had heretical interpolations. The issues
raised by Rabbi Feinstein are surely deserving of attention. I would say
that given the authoritative sources in the Babylonian Talmud [1-4] that
suggest Mosaic authorship of the Torah (except for the last 8 verses) do
we not need to investigate how any Rishon would allow massive tampering
with the text of the Torah (e.g. the removal of whole parshios) without
mustering authoritative counter-evidence?

Shapiro is, of course, aware of the Teshuva as he quotes it earlier:
"Feinstein's rejection of the authenticity of this passage (a midrash)
should be viewed as part of his pattern of discarding sources that do
not fit in with his understanding" [footnote 73, p101].

Thus, according to Shapiro, the Tzioni has no objection to massive
post-Mosaic tampering. One would expect an intellectual historian to
cross-check such damaging assertions with the rest of the published
sefer Tzioni [Zioni]. Unlike some other sources quoted by Shapiro, the
Tzioni is a known work quoted (I am told) in the Magen Avraham and the
Shelah. Let's see what such a check reveals.

In parshas Balak the Talmud [TB BB15a] states that Moshe wrote his own
sefer, parshas Bilam and Job. A question -- parshas Bilam is already
part of Moshe's sefer Torah?

The Tzioni answers: <<It is well-known that the whole Torah from
"Beraishis" until "in the eyes of all Israel" (i.e from the very first
word of the Torah to its very last word) was from the mouth of the
Holy One Blessed be He, to the ear of Moshe as it says "from his mouth
he dictated to me all his words and I wrote them on a scroll with ink
[Yermiyahu 36:18, a prooftext brought by R. Shimon in [3] to show that
Moshe wrote the whole Sefer Torah word for word as dictated to him by
G-d]. Know that here (in the official Sefer Torah) Moshe wrote only a
brief summary of the story of Bilam.. it appears from the Sages that
that Moshe wrote his own (private) sefer in addition to to the (official)
sefer Torah and the (private) sefer (with an expanded description of
parshas Bilam) was lost to us like many others.>>

So we see that the Tzioni (a) should have objected to any tampering
with the text of the Torah. In fact the Tzioni appears to reject the
opinion of R. Yehuda in [3] who held that the last 8 verses (and only
those verses) were written by Joshua. Instead he quotes only the opinion
of R. Shimon that every verse in the Torah, including the last eight,
were written by Moshe. According to the Tzioni we also see that (b)
Moshe had a private sefer (or sefarim).

In fact, (b) perhaps suggests that the Tzioni understood R. Judah
Hahasid to be saying that King David removed Hallel HaGadol from Moshe's
private "chumash" and put it in Tehillim, something that is totally
unobjectionable. Later I found this stated explicitly in the recently
released volume 6 of R. Menashe Klein's Mishna Halochos 102. See there
for more support for this idea.

For a more scholarly discussion of this issue and the sources quoted by
Shapiro, see the Torah Shlema of Rabbi Kasher.

-- R. Meir and the Ramban -- 

Shapiro writes on p96:

<<According to a number of Midrashic sources, R. Meir himself had a
Torah text that differed from that of his colleagues (BR 9: 5,20). For
example, while the standard version of Genesis 1:31 reads "tov me-od",
R. Meir's text read "Behold, death was good" (tov maves)... According
to Nachmanides, this was not the result of an error made by an ignorant
scribe, but rather that that R. Meir himself was responsible for the
variant.>>

According to Shapiro (using Nachmanides as support), R. Meir had a
legitimate variant text! This is to be contrasted, Shapiro asserts, with
the Rambam in the Guide 3:10 that this reflects R. Meir's interpretation
of the verse rather than a variant text [footnote 35, p96].

But, what Nachmanides actually says is: <<R. Meir was a scribe. Once when
he wrote a Sefer Torah, he pondered deeply in his heart that "very good"
refers even to death... His hand followed his thoughts and he erred
and inadvertenly wrote in his Sefer Torah that... "death was good">>
[Kisvei Ramban 1:p184]

Thus both the Rambam and Nachmanides agree that what R. Meir really
had was an interpretation, not a legitimate variant text. The only
diagreement is whether the (correct) interpretation inadvertently and in
error landed up the actual body of the scroll or not. Shapiro must also
be aware of R. Chavell's footnote that all the standard commentaries
to the Midrash opine that the actual text of the Torah was not tampered
with. The interpretation was placed on the margin, or in a separate book
of "derashos".

The omission of the full quote of the Ramban allows for a badly distorted
reading of R. Meir.

-- The Talmud Makos 11a -- 

Shapiro writes on page 104:

<< In BT Makot 11a this suggestion (for post-Mosiac authorship) is even
supported by a prooftext "And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the
law of G-d" (Josh. 24: 26). However, another tannaitic opinion is also
offered here, which understands this verse as referring to the section
dealing with the cities of refuge. Although the Talmud interprets this
to mean that Joshua wrote in his own book (i.e. the book of Joshua)
the information which already appears "in the book of the law of G-d',
the simple meaning of the tannaitic text is that the sections in the
Pentateuch dealing with the cities of refuge were indeed written by
Joshua.>>

Here is the quote from the BT Makos 11a:

<<"And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Torah of G-d
(Josh. xxiv. 26, which implies that part of the Torah was written by
Joshua). The [Tannaim]o R. Jehudah and R. Nechamiah differ: one Tanna says
that Joshua wrote only the last eight verses, which begin with "And Moses
died"; the other Tanna says that Joshua wrote the portion of the cities
of refuge. [The Gemora asks] Now it is understandable that according
to the one who says that Joshua wrote only the last eight verses, that
is why it says "the book of the law of G-d" (because these eight verses
are actually part of the Torah), but according to the one who says that
Joshua wrote the portion of the cities of refuge, what is the meaning
of "the book of the law of G-d" (in which Joshua wrote)? [The Gemora
replies] This is what it means: And Joshua wrote in in his own book
[sefer Yehoshua] about the cities of refuge which are written in the
book of the Torah of G-d (i.e. Joshua repeated them in his own book).>>

The Talmud concludes that Joshua did not edit the Torah in the
portion of the cities of refuge.

What is Shapiro's warrant for rejecting the undisputed conclusion of
the Talmud? Perhaps Shapiro has a Rashi or Tosefos to support him?

It does not appear so, for [in footnote 86] Shapiro quotes the
(anti-orthodox) Conservative theologian Louis Jacobs as his source. I
do not have a copy of the book by Jacobs, but I do know that Jacobs
rejected orthodox beliefs precisely because he wants the freedom to
engage in Biblical criticism.

[Commentary, April 2000, pages 61-62]: <<Jacobs believes that modern
scholarship has authoritatively established that the Pentateuch is a
"composite work produced at different periods in the history of ancient
Israel". Yet orthodox Jews simply ignore this incontrovertible [sic]
finding, clinging instead to a fundamentalism that is both "unscientific
and unhistorical". Jacobs finds such a position quite incredible,
especially when it is embraced by modern-Orthodox Jews who in all other
respects "embrace [secular] learning wholeheartedly".>>

Shapiro writes that his intent is simply to look at "traditional Jewish
sources" [p 158] in a search for the truth. Why then does he reject the
undisputed conclusion of the Talmud in Makos 11a, and drag his readership
into the anti-orthodox camp of Louis Jacobs? Is this not a distorted
treatment of traditional Jewish sources?

jonathan Ostroff

Rabbi Dr.Leiman has been quoted as saying that the Thirteen Principles
are normative. I think his position is more complicated, because at a
lecture he gave in Toronto (available from Torahinmotion.org) he defended
the religious legitimacy of R. Yehudah he-Chasid's view on the authorship
of the Torah (although he criticized Prof. Halivni's approach).

    Joseph

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>RDE
>>Ginas Veradim states that the halachic Sefer Torah is to be viewed as the one
>>that was given at Sinai. He acknoweldges that the specific text can vary over
>>time depending on the majority vote. Thus the Rambam's 8th principle
>>seems to be understood as not literally true but halachicly true.

>While the language is used that this is to be viewed as given at Sinai,
>this reflects the respect due to the sefer torah - that we do not allow
>the doubts that we have about the proper text to diminish our respect
>for it - ...

>However, this does not reflect the adoption of the rambam's eighth
>ikkar emuna as mandatory for this sefer tora - because after all,
>if one read from a sefer with a different text (based on the other,
>rejected version), one is yotze - and the rambam's ikkar would require
>that we view the other text as clearly wrong. The rambam's eigth ikkar
>is not viewed as halachically true, because rejection of the "proper
>mosaic text" is not viewed as halachically kfira.

The Rambam's principles have to make sense. A literal understanding of
the Rambam's principle would have to be rejected by the Rambam himself
since he acknowledges in Mishneh Torah that not all scrolls have identical
texts. An alternative being proposed is that the Rambam meant halachic
determination. Those scrolls which have been declared kosher by the
proper halachic procedure are to be viewed as the manifestation of
the Torah given on Sinai. The question you raise is whether a person
who utilizes a text which has some halachic justification but not the
majority of contemporary authorities - would have to be considered a
heretic. Obviously not.

No one considers that the Rambam's heretic is someone who uses a Torah
with less halachic status. The Rambam's heretic is one who denies
halachic continuity with the Torah of Moshe and insists that the Torah
is to some degree deliberately man made. Saying that error has crept
him - inadvertently - and that the halachic Torah is the one that best
approximates that of Moshe is consistent with the Rambam. It also allows
the best halachic Torah to vary over time and between communities -
without labeling any of the alternative versions as heretical. Thus
the halachic process and majority rule can legitimately be involved in
determining the best fit with the principle of faith. Heresy in the case
is constant. It is the insistence of deliberate human authorship of some
or all of the Torah.

Daniel Eidensohn

RDE
> The Rambam's principles have to make sense. A literal understanding of
> the Rambam's principle would have to be rejected by the Rambam himself
> since he acknowledges in Mishneh Torah that not all scrolls have identical
> texts. An alternative being proposed is that the Rambam meant halachic
> determination. Those scrolls which have been declared kosher by the
> proper halachic procedure are to be viewed as the manifestation of the
> Torah given on Sinai.

This is an interesting approach to the internal contradictions of
the ikkare emuna in the rambam. The facts that you point out are ones
tha some have used to question the rambam's own commitment to the 13
ikkarim. Howver, I think that you are mixing up two separate issues.

There are two possible errors that one can raise about the torah: 1)
That someone (moshe, ezra, anonymous redactor) deliberately inserted
his own material into the torah. This is clearly the most serious one,
and it is the one most explicitly condemned by the rambam.

2) While there was no deliberate forgery, over the years, due to scribal
errors and human foibles, errors have crept into the text.

You are arguing that the second type of error is not condemned by the
rambam - even against his own text. (there are many who accept the fact
that the second type of error occurs, and the issue is precisely how far
one accepts this error - is it only male vehasser, rav akiva eiger's
list,- 0.0001%,0.1% etc). However, I think that you are fairly unique
in arguing that the rambam himself did not formulate this error as being
problematic and part of the ikkar (see below)

As a halachic issue, many would agree that a sefer torah declared kosher
by the proper halachic procedure are to be treated as the manifestation
of the torah given on Sinai - the question is how far does one allow
the known doubts we have to affect this treatment.

However, you are clearly unique (and, WADR, I find it a position hard to
argue seriously) in arguing that as a philosophical principle, the rambam
held that the text declared kosher by the proper halachic procedure are to
be viewed as the manifestation of the Torah given on Sinai - a statement
that concords, perhaps, with an understanding of hashgacha as per, say,
the CI, but is quite at odds with the rambam's own understanding of
hashgacha and the nature of the torah and moshe's nevua.

The question you raise is whether a person who utilizes a text which has
some halachic justification but not the majority of contemporary
authorities - would have to be considered a heretic. Obviously not.

This is clearly the position of all current authorities. It is not
clearly the position of the rambam in his ikkarim - which is at the
heart of the issue of whether the ikkarim are truly accepted as normative.

> No one considers that the Rambam's heretic is someone who uses a Torah
> with less halachic status. The Rambam's heretic is one who denies
> halachic continuity with the Torah of Moshe and insists that the Torah
> is to some degree deliberately man made. Saying that error has crept
> him - inadvertently - and that the halachic Torah is the one that best
> approximates that of Moshe is consistent with the Rambam. It also allows
> the best halachic Torah to vary over time and between communities -
> without labeling any of the alternative versions as heretical. Thus
> the halachic process and majority rule can legitimately be involved in
> determining the best fit with the principle of faith. Heresy in the case
> is constant. It is the insistence of deliberate human authorship of some
> or all of the Torah.

1) The statement that inadvertent error has kept in is, according to most
readings of the rambam, not consistent with it - his ikkar has two parts -
that the torah we have today is the identical one to moshe rabbenu, and
that moshe did not write anything on his own. The fact that this ikkar is
not consistent with most understandings of reality, and that most poskim
don't accept it - is at the heart of part of Marc Schapiro's argument that
the ikkarim really aren't accepted. RDE's attempted rewriting of them
is consonant with many modern such attempts, but it isn't the rambam.
(Question: If someone would argue that the torah was received by moshe
rabbenu, but over the years inadvertent errors have crept in so that
less than 50% of it is accurate - no claim of delieberately man made -
is that consonant with your understanding of the ikkar?)

2) While there are few who would argue (except the plain understanding of
the rambam) that use of a sefer torah based on a minority traditions is
heretical, the gan veradim does say something important - he argues that
such a sefer may even be used halachically, even though only bdiavad -
which further vitiates the notion that there is some fundamental principle
that the majority acceptance of the text grants it some fundamental status

Meir Shinnar

re
David Riceman wrote:
>2. With regard to the reason for Spinoza's excommunication I had
>relied on Otzar Yisrael (s.v. Spinoza, pp.199-200). "After his father's
>death ... he attended synagogue rarely and devoted all his time to his
>Christian companions. Only after he left his sister's house to dwell
>with his Christian teacher did his teachers ... feel themselves obliged
>to excommunicate him."

>RDE quotes Encyclopedia Britannica that it was due to his doctrine

I asked my Shvar
> Did you not tell me that you attended a conference and heard a monologue
> delivered re Spinoza re the reason for his exc, and it had nothing to
> do with what's quoted below from Judaica, but rather having transacted
> property when not of legal age? Do you remember details?

and he answered
> Yes. That's right. Unfortunately I don't remember the name of the lady
> who gave the paper at the Wold Jewish Studies Conference about 10 years
> ago. She was the archivist at the (I think) Amsterdam municipal Library
> in charge of Jewish holdings.
> In any case the article in JE raises questions. What had Spinoza done
> at the age of 24 when he was put in Cherem? After all even according
> to that article he had at that date not published anything! (heretical
> or otherwise)
> Cecil Roth says somewhere that he applied to the Sepharadi Kehilla for
> permission to look at the papers and was refused. Now that the papers
> are in the Municipal library they are open and (she said) all that was
> published before was purely surmise.
> The paper was probably published in the proceedings and so should not
> be too hard to find.

can anyone shed some more light?

meir

> See R Elchanan re Rav Tana UPalig in Kesuvos. Amoraim could but
> rarely dissagreed withTanaim. A Tana and an Amora were on the same 
> level because  they both learned from purely oral sources. An Achron 
> can dissagree with a Rishon. RHS elaborates on this issue at length 
> in his shiur on  whether TSBP is dynamic or static in nature.

CI disagreed with R. Elchanan Wasserman (who may have retracted). R.
Fisher and others have written on the topic.
The issue is fairly complicated and not for a short note

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 3/21/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

I have not seen Rabbi Marc Shapiro's new book. However, since (I am
told) it is based upon his original Torah u'Madah Journal article (Vol.
4, Spring 1993), I will assume that it contains one of the original
points made in the article -- a point which I respectfully question and,
through this posting, seek the views of others.

In his article R. Shapiro writes (at page 201) : "... even
Maimonides' assertion that the entire Torah was given by Moses has
been disputed. There is an opinion in the Talmud, accepted by many
post-talmudic authorities, that Joshua wrote the last eight verses in
the Pentateuch....."

And again (id.) -- "Although Maimonides regards it as heretical, the
view that Joshua had a hand in writing the Pentateuch....."

And finally (at 204): "As we have already noted, there is an opinion in
the Talmud that the last eight verses of the Torah were written by Joshua.
For Maimonides to declare a talmudic opinion as heretical... " implying
that the Rambam not only holds against the shitah that says that Yehoshua
wrote down the last eight p'sukim, but holds that this is heresy.

Respectfully, a careful reading of the Rambam in Shomeh Prakim and
especially in the Yad (T'filah 13:6) manifests that Rabbi Shapiro seems
to have misread/misunderstood the Rambam.

The Rambam does not say that it is an ikkar to believe that Moshe _wrote_
down the Torah (as R. Shapiro says/implies); rather, the ikkar is that
HKBH told it to Moshe.

 The language in the SP is that it is heretical to believe that Moshe
"seiper" -- told over, not "wrote" -- the stories found in the Torah,
"midaato" , (loose translation) from himself, i.e., that he made them up.
And in the Yad, the Rambam carefully says regarding the Torah (and the
last eight p'sukim): "... and Moshe from [kivyachol] the mouth of [HKBH]
_said them over_..." -- i.e., the Rambam uses the word "amram" _not_
"kasvam". Thus, the key to the ikkar is the _authorship_ and _origin_
of the Torah and the last eight p'sukim, _not_ who was the scribe writing
down the words of HKBH.

Indeed, when I learned the Rambam in the Yad it occurred to me that the
Rambam did not necessarily hold like the second shitah in the gemora
that Moshe was the scribe as to the last eight p'sukim. Rather, it would
appear that the Rambam held like the first shitah, i.e., that the last
eight p'sukim were written down by Yehoshua after they were told over to
him by Moshe who was given them by HKBH. That is why the Rambam omitted
any mention in the Yad of Moshe _writing_ the Torah and particularly the
last eight p'sukim, but rather uses the language of "amram." [But see the
Hagahos Maimoniyis who holds that the Rambam held like the second shitah.]

Thereafter, I was shown an article about the last eight p'sukim by
Rabbi Yitzchak Sender (of the English "Commentators" series published
by Feldheim) in his Hebrew "Sefer Meorai Tzion" (obtainable from Rabbi
Sender who lives in Chicago). In that piece, R. Sender brings down (in
the name of the "Seder Misnah", by Rabbi Zeav Wolf Boskowitz), if not
himself personally concludes, precisely that point - namely, that the
Rambam holds that Yehoshua _wrote_ the last eight p'sukim after Moshe
originally heard and was given them first from HKBH. Ayein sham.

If the above is correct, R. Shapiro's statements in his article, including
that "...Maimonides regards it as heretical, the view that Joshua had
a hand in writing the Pentateuch ..." are incorrect.

Thoughts/comments?

YK

R' Zev Sero maintains that the Mechaber (Maran Yosef Karo) clearly
distanced himself from his earlier pesak in hachnosat shabbat (O.C.
261:2) that the start of "bein ha'shemoshot" was 3 1/4 mil (about 58
minutes) after the sun dips below the horizon (conventional sunset).
The evidence is allegedly from Y.D. 266:9 where the Mechaber states that
a baby born "mi'she'tishka ha'chama" (on a friday) can not have a brit
before the following sunday (since he was born at a time which is already
a "safek layla". The "alter Rebbe" in the hachnosat shabbat essay in his
siddur (Tehilat Hashem) also makes the claim that the Mechaber retracted
his support for the shita of Rabbenu Tam in hilchot mila. However,
he does not give a precise reference. Nor is this his main argument -
as R' Sero implies. His argument stems basically from observations of
when stars appear, and he claims that according to the shita of Rabbenu
Tam bein ha'shemoshot would include the time when the sky is literally
filled with stars -great and small. He also lists the various Rishonim
and Achronim who either openly or implicitly view bein ha'shemoshot as
starting with conventional sunset. Rabbenu Tam, in perek Bameh Madlikin
and elsewhere in talmud Bavli, considers that wherever the Bavli uses
the term "mi'she'tishka ha'chama" it refers not to conventional sunset,
but to a time when the reddened sky is confined to the "immediate area"
of the sun after its setting. The time difference at the equinoxes at the
latitudes of Israel and Bavel comes to the average time to walk 3 1/4 mil
(according to Rabbah). When the Bavli wishes to refer to conventional
sunset, it uses the term "shki'at ha'chama" (as in "dam nifsal beshekiat
hachama") rather than "mi'she'tishka". Therefore, when the Mechaber who
follows Rabbenu Tam uses the term "mi'she'tishka ha'chama" , as in hilchot
mila (Y.D. 266:9) he means Rabbenu Tam's shkiah - not conventional sunset
(which he calls "techilat ha'shekiah" in hilchot shabbat).

The Sifsei Kohen (Shach) on Hilchot Mila (266:11) appears to support
those who disagree with Rabbenu Tam, but that is no indication of a
supposed change of view of the Mechaber.

Yitzchok Zlochower

 From Sefer Oheiv Yisrael by Rav Avraham Yehoshua Heshel of Apta, on
Purim:

I found a sefer that says that Pesachya is Mordechai and there is a
siman for this in the possuk, "Your beginning will be small, but your
end will be very abundant" (Iyyov 8:7). The simple meaning of this is
that the first three letters of Mordechai each have half the gematria
of the first three letters of Pesachya while the last two letters each
have double the gematria of the last two letters of Pesachya.

The Oheiv Yisrael goes on to give another explanation bederech remez.

Kol tuv,
Yisrael Herczeg

R Harry Maryles wrote:
> The question that is asked on the Chait HaEgel is, how is it possible for
> the Bnei Israel to have been Oviedei Avodah Zara?...
> Many commentators deal with that question but I found the Beis Halevi's
> Pshat to be quite interesting as a Limuid Zechus and as a Mussar Haskel for
> our time. The BH states that when the Bnei Israel saw that Moshe hadn't come
> down from Har Sinai at the designated time, they wanted to make an object
> designated for the Shechina. This is in fact ultimately what the purpose of
> the Mishkan was....
> But their mistake was that they misunderstood the way a corporeal item has
> impact in heaven. The only way an object on this world impacts heaven is if
> it mandated by God. But, if one does any act that is not mandated by God and
> motivated only through one's own intellect, it has no impact at all....

I once posted something on the eigel, the Temples of Malkhus Yisrael, the
Keruvim, the Egyptian cult of Apis, the Assyrian "karibu".

See <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n121.shtml#12>, part II in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol08/v08n124.shtml#14>.

I also reach the conclusion that the flaw was in wanting an Apis-like figure
that allows one to passively be connected to the Transcendent rather than have
to actively connect to the Immanent.

-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

RHM asks:
>                  Query: We all know the Gemara in Menachos where HaShem
> shows Moshe Rabbeinu the Beis Medrash of R Akiva. Yet, we never learn either
> a have aminah or a halacha from that Beis Medrash. Perhaps, as RHS pointed
> out, that's because we include even those views which are never accepted as
> a Cheftza of Torah for purposes of Mitzvas Talmud Torah.

Actually, we learn nearly all of halakhah from that beis medrash!

There are two collections of medrashei halakhah.

Devei R' Aqiva:
        Shemos: Mekhilta deRabbi Shim'on bar Yochai
        Vayiqra: Sifra (a/k/a Sifra deVei Rav, Toras Kohanim)
        Bamidbar: Sifrei Zuta
        Devarim: Sifrei

Devei R' Yishma'el:
        Shemos: Mekhilta (ie "the" Mekhilta, a/k/a Mekhilta deRabbi Yeshima'el)
        Bamidbar: Sifrei
        Devarim: Mekhilta Devarim

Note as an aside that the book we call "Sifrei" is actually two very different
sefarim; Sifrei on Bamidbar comes from a different beis medrash than that on
Devarim.

Rabbi Aqiva then went on to produce mishnayos, a project continued by Rav
Mei'ir and culminated with Rebbe. All of the mishnah therefore represents R'
Aqiva's beis medrash. (R' Yishma'el, while a scion of that Beis Medrash, went
on to found his own.)

IMHO, R' Aqiva's and R' Yishma'el's list of rules of derashah reflect
different basic assumptions about what derashah is. Differences so basic they
had to produce very different results.

According to Rabbi Aqiva, derashah is a syntactic enterprise. He speaks of
ribui umi'ut, which are terms that apply to key words -- "akh", "raq", "es",
etc... His method of learning is therefore called that of darshening tagim.
The focus is on the letters and words on the page, without derashah paying
attention to their meaning in context.

Rabbi Yishma'el, OTOH, holds "dibrah Torah belashon benei adam". He therefore
can't place the same significance in word choice, and can dismiss "aseir
ta'aseir" as simply being common idiom. His rules of derashah are more
semantic, involving ribui umi'ut -- whether the meaning of the phrase is
inclusive or exclusive (as opposed to looking for key words).

I think the acceptance of the mishnah was no less a decision point than the
choice of beis Hillel over beis Shammai. It was the victory of the syntactic
understanding of derashah and R' Aqiva's 19 rules over R' Yishma'el's 13.

-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

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


[ 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         ]