Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 044

Tuesday, July 6 2004

• Rov dleita kaman
• Re: Rov dleita kaman
• Re: Jokes and Humor
• Extinct Animals
• VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #14, MC p. 46
• 2 Daf Yomi questions
• Re: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Subject: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Megillah 16b
• matnas yad
• Goral HaGR"A
• Rov dleita kaman
• Jokes and Humor
• Jokes and Humor
• Re:Megillah 16b
• Re: Singing the Zemer 'Bar Yocha'i in Shul
• Re: Disputing Earlier Generations--Halacha L'Moshe MiSinai
• VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk]
• Psak-shopping (from Areivim)
• Re: Psak-shopping
• Re: Psak-shopping
• Psak-shopping
• Gestation of wolf,lion,bear,leapord,elephant,and monkey

Someone mentioned the ptchei tshuva (Y"D 110:2) which discusses the
9 stores case if 1 sells much more meat than the others. 2 opinions
are brought down(both of which think their way is the pashut pshat:-).
The tshuvot Bet Ephraim says that we go after the majority of meat sold
that day The Nodeh Byehuda says that if the shas meant that it would
have said so(not stores)

What is the hesber in this machloket?

Is it that the TB"E is saying that Chazal wanted the best shot at what
the true rov is(problems then with how narrowly do you define sample
space - eg what if 1 store sells more chulent meat etc.)

IS nb"Y saying this is Halacha moshe misinai or a takanna that is
unchangeable, or is it a rough and ready estimator? (Nafka mina-what if
you could prove there's a better estimator-eg karov)

KT
Joel Rich

Was anyone able to find the Ran the Pischei Teshuvah refer to? The
inyan is found in 4 places in shas, which gives 8 locations to
look in. So, I could have missed it. But it's driving me nuts.

-mi

Concerning the propriety of jokes in sefarim - someone once pointed out
to me that the Torah itself appears to make use of humor. When Yosef is
interpreting the dreams of the butler and baker, Yosef tells the butler:

"Within three days, Pharaoh shall lift up your head... and restore you
to your place."

Then when the baker sees how great this interpretation was and asks about
his own dream, Yosef starts speaking to the baker in similar fashion:

"Within three days, Pharaoh shall lift up your head..."

- except this time he continues -

"...from off your shoulders, and he shall hang you on a tree"!

I don't know if the joke was in the original Egyptian conversation,
but it seems clearly there in the Hebrew version!

Nosson Slifkin

R Nosson Slifkin wrote:
> The point is that almost every animal living today in Eretz Yisrael
> is also known from hundreds of fossils. This tells us that the fossil
> record for the region's recent wildlife is excellent.

> It's not like archeology. Whenever the animal in question is posited to be
> extinct, this is suggested in order to maintain its identity in accordance
> with what is given by the simple understanding of the Torah, e.g. a
> small ruminant that can hide under the rocks (the shafan), or a raptor
> without a hind toe (the nesher), or a giant Thing (the re'em). These
> are all radical departures from known species. You're talking about an
> entirely new family. To say that no fossil members of this family have
> ever been found anywhere in the world is extraordinarily far-fetched
> (aside from the innate chiddush in positing such a new type). And let's
> not forget that we are talking about the creature existing just a few
> thousand years ago, when aside from fossils, we have extensive literary
> and artistic records of animal life.

What about the tachash, which the gemara tells us is extinct? (It it the
gemara, or later commentaries? I don't really remember, but *someone*
says it's extinct.) It's supposed to have been a large animal with a
multicoloured hide. Fossils wouldn't tell us the colours, but do the
'literary and artistic records' give us an animal, backed up by fossil
records, that would fit the tachash? And if it could exist and go
extinct, and not appear in the records, then why not other animals?

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                       potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                       before the war.                         - David Kay

"Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> In Orach Chaim #318 we learn that several Rishonim hold that ein bishul
> achar bishul b'lach. Yet several Acharonim (see Chavas Da'as Yoreh
> De'ah 94:4) hold that in the case of basar b'chalav there is bishul
> achar bishul. VIDC?

I don't understand the question.  There are several rishonim who hold
that.  But there are also several who don't.  Why assume that those
who hold 'yesh bishul' in basar bechalav don't hold the same in shabbat,
and vice versa?  Or do they say so explicitly?

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Hi,

I didn't get the chance to research the following two questions, of
which I am confident I saw the answer about the first one. Never mind,
I am presenting the questions to you, dear 'hevrah:

* in the 1st chapter of Bekhorot, we learn about the possible tumas okhlin
of donkey, the question being whether it needs ma'hshavah or not (Rabbi
Shim'on vs. Rabbanan). Why does this question exist at all. After all,
donkey has tumah 'hamurah of nivlat beheimah tmeiah?

* in the second chapter, the mishnah (16ab, IIRC) discusses what one
should do if there is doubt as to which animal is a bekhor. What strikes
me is that hamotzi me'havero 'alav harayah rules, even though giving the
sheep to the kohen is a mitzvat 'aseh. Shouldn't we say that indeed, the
kohen can't require the sheep, but it is in the interest of the owner,
in the spirit of safeq deOraitah, to give both sheep?

Arie Folger
-- 
Rabbiner Arie Folger,
Israelitische Gemeinde Basel

"SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> I have heard that some Sefardi shuls in EY it is sung every Friday night.

This is the case in the Temani shul in Flatbush (Netivot Teman).

> Our shul, which is nusach Ashkenaz [Ob], it is sung on the Friday night
> before Lag B'omer - after Bameh Madlikin - before Borchu[...]
> My question is:
> As this song is full of praise for the greatness of Rashby, is it 'derech
> eretz' or even halachically correct to halt our tefilos to the RBSO -
> to sing the praises of a bosor vodom - be it even the great Rashby? And
> noch in Shul?
> Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?

But it isn't mid-tefillah. You haven't started your tefillot to the
RbSO yet. You've been reading tehillim and singing a piyyut (Lecha Dodi)
in honour of Shabbat, you took a break to learn some mishnayot about
the preparation for Shabbat, now you're about to *start* davening to the
RbSO, and before doing so, just *before* the chazan calls out to 'Bless
Hashem', you remember that the yartzeit of an Adam Gadol is coming up,
and you sing a piyyut in his praise.

IIRC, there is not a single word in kabbalat shabbat that addresses
Hashem directly. It's all *about* Hashem, not *to* Him.

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                       potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                       before the war.                         - David Kay

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> I presume that most on this list know the zemer 'Bar Yocho'i' which is
> usually sung on Lag B'omer.

> I have heard that some Sefardi shuls in EY it is sung every Friday night.

> Our shul, which is nusach Ashkenaz [Ob], it is sung on the Friday night
> before Lag B'omer - after Bameh Madlikin - before Borchu, which AFAIK
> has become a minhag of many chassidim.
..
> As this song is full of praise for the greatness of Rashby, is it 'derech
> eretz' or even halachically correct to halt our tefilos to the RBSO -
> to sing the praises of a bosor vodom - be it even the great Rashby? And
> noch in Shul?

> Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?

> [The "Zechors" in Tefilas Geshem mention certain greats - but there we
> are asking for rain - 'bizechusom' - rather than stam praising them.]

A few comments -

1) I think the fellow who started singing it 'spontaneously' should
be censured. Is a shul a hefker velt where anyone can do what he wants
and introduce new practices just because he takes a fancy to them ? If
someone wants to do something he should consult with Rav, gabboim, etc. -
not 'take the law into his own hands'.

2) The question was asked if that is how new minhogim start - I think
that is how they start in some or even many cases - yes. Especially if
the minhag seems 'frum', people are reluctant to 'rock the boat' and
oppose things like a new tefillah, zemer - despite the fact that we have
a klal that 'kol hamosif goreia', and that people have enough trouble
having kavonnoh in the many tefillos we already have, without adding more.

3) You say the Rav didn't protest - that is not so surprising to me,
because, IIRC, you have stated in the past that he is Hassidic - so maybe
he actually liked it (by the way, this shows the problematic aspect of
having a Rav from a different background, who may not, in his heart,
support the minhogim of his Kehillah). Re the 'stiff-necked Ashkenaz
types' - ah, those holy people, the am kishei oref < g >, may they
be blessed - perhaps (lo oleinu) they have loosened up a bit over the
years under the blazing Aussie sun.........or perhaps they were looking
to the Rav to lead on the inyan and felt (wrongly, IMHO) that it would
be chutzpah for them to oppose it if the Rav had no problem with it.
However, I think they should have opposed it anyway, and not be so
humble when it comes to defending their holy minhogim (a minhag NOt to
say something is also a minhag !).

4) Re your objection to singing it in the middle of davening - I am happy
to see that you have in you an Oberlander gefil to at least recognize
it as an issue for discussion. I think you are right and it is not in
accordance with minhogei Ashkenaz, at the very least (if not questionable
for other eidos as well).

5) Finally, as an aside, there is more than one zemer 'bar yochai'.

Mordechai

As an aside, I just want to mention, that Ibn Ezra on Esther 10:3 gives a
different pshat than the gemara. He says that Mordechai was only ratzui
lirov echov (IIRC) 'mipnei she'i efsher liratzos hakol, machmas kinas
ha'achim' (it is impossible to satisfy/mollify everyone..........).

Mordechai

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> ........Rabbi Dr. Ephraim Kanarfogel told me that Yizkor on YT is an
> extension of Matnas Yad.

> For those non-yekkes who are clueless about matnass yad let me say briefly
> that one makes nedavos on YT during the day of krias parhsas Re'eh {ish
> mekmatnos yado} therefore Yizkor are merely Nedavos in memory of beloved
> ones in adddition to other nedavos

There is also a special 'mi shebeirach' for matnas yad, which can be seen
in 'Yekke' siddurim. IIRC, I once saw somewhere (perhaps in writings of
Rav Shimon Schwab z"l or was it in the biography of Rav Dr. Yosef Breuer
z"l ?), that the members of KAJ visit the Rav on that day (near end of
yom tov ?) as part of matnas yad, which they connect to the Talmudic
'chayav odom lihakbil pnei rabbo biregel'.

Mordechai

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> Someone on HydePark asking about the procedure of the "goyrol Hagro",
> with one poster suggesting he could use the L method of opening an
> "Igros"...

> Anyone know how it actually works? [And why indeed it has a different
> 'din' to the 'Igros' method?]

The sefer 'HaGaon' by Rav Dov Eliach shlit"a has a chapter dedicated to it
(chapter 33, volume 3). Ayen shom ba'arichus.

Some of the interesting things stated there are that it should only be
used for extreme situations - not for minor/trivial matters, and that
certain Litvisher' gedolim oppose/d it's use (at least generally speaking,
for the hamon am, etc.), based on 'Tomim tihiyeh im Hashem Elokecho'
(e.g. Rav Chaim Kanievsky, [and lihavdil] 'The Steipler', the Chazon Ish,
and Rav Schach, z"l), esp. since it is not entirely clear how to do it,
we don't have direct eidus from the Gaon z"l about it, etc.

Mordechai

Someone mentioned the ptchei tshuva (Y"D 110:2) which discusses the
9 stores case if 1 sells much more meat than the others. 2 opinions
are brought down(both of which think their way is the pashut pshat:-).
The tshuvot Bet Ephraim says that we go after the majority of meat sold
that day The Nodeh Byehuda says that if the shas meant that it would
have said so(not stores)

What is the hesber in this machloket?

I would think that the issue is what defines a rov. In every case
of mrubbah porish you can look at the source or at the piece that
separated. Beis Efraim thinks that the defining factor is the source. The
store that sells more meat has a much greater contribution to the total
makeup of the meat. Nodeh B'Yehuda thinks that we look at the product
and consider the rov of which store it came from. What makes up the
rov according to him is the chance that the product came from the
kosher store.

M. Levin

Concerning the propriety of jokes in sefarim - someone once pointed out
to me that the Torah itself appears to make use of humor. When Yosef is
interpreting the dreams of the butler and baker, Yosef tells the butler:

"Within three days, Pharaoh shall lift up your head... and restore you
to your place."

Then when the baker sees how great this interpretation was and asks about
his own dream, Yosef starts speaking to the baker in similar fashion:

"Within three days, Pharaoh shall lift up your head..."

- except this time he continues -

"...from off your shoulders, and he shall hang you on a tree"!

I don't know if the joke was in the original Egyptian conversation,
but it seems clearly there in the Hebrew version!

What you are referring to is the modern concept of irony in the
Bible. This concept is being used by both gentile and Jewish commentators,
including some form the dati-leumi communities as well as academia. An
exmaple would be using it to analyze teh frequent changes of fortune
in Megillas Esther or the narrative of Yosef and his brothers. Here is
a citation from Holman Bible dictionary: IRONY is a trope (figure of
speech) in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that normally
expressed by the words used. The technique is built upon the trajectories
of aroused expectations and gratifications. It depends upon: (1) common
vocabulary, (2) common cultural experience, and (3) common awareness of
typical literary forms. Irony is normally used to express a disparity
between what is actually so and what the object of the irony believes
to be so. Since irony means the opposite or near opposite of what it
seems to say, interpreters of the Bible need to be able to recognize it.

Uses of Irony in the Bible Irony may be the reason for individual word
choice. In the Hebrew text of Job 1:5, Job offered sacrifices because
he feared his children may have "blessed" (Hebrew text) God. The writer
really meant "curse," as most translations render the Hebrew word, but
he wrote "blessed" somewhat in the English sense of "blessed out." The
euphemism seems to emphasize the extreme nature of the sin by using its
exact opposite to describe it. At other times, the irony may require the
entire statement. This is easily seen in Job's bitter retort in Job 12:2,
"No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you." Job
was really saying that his so-called comforters were not as important
or wise as they thought they were.

In addition to the ironic use of individual words or phrases, entire
narratives can be structured around an irony of situation or fate. In
the first case, the outcome of events seems contradictory to what could
generally be expected and results in mocking the propriety of the apparent
power structure. The second case is similar, but events have unexpected
consequences when the actor brings about a result contrary to the original
purpose. This usually involves the introduction of an impostor (or a false
message), a debate between the ironist (critic of the impostor who wins),
and a conclusion which vindicates the truth (or the ironist). Balaam's
desire to be made wealthy at Israel's expense in Numbers 22-24 certainly
ended up backfiring upon both the soothsayer and his Moabite patron,
Balak. Instead of getting rich on Moabite gold by cursing Israel, he
was thwarted by God and had to bless Israel and curse Moab. This is
an irony of fate. In Daniel 2:1, the magicians were the impostors who
claimed that no one could interpret the king's dream. Daniel was the
ironist who taught them where wisdom arises (Daniel 2:20) and revealed
the truth (Daniel 2:30). The impossible task was accomplished; the irony
of situation was complete; and the power of God emphasized! This is the
usual purpose of narrative irony in the Bible.

Bible students aware of the use of irony will recognize some of the humor
in the Bible which exists at the expense of God's enemies. A study of
comedy, rhetoric, and satire would also be helpful.

Johnny L. Wilson

Posted by M. Levin

I remember purchasing an older version of a bright orange two volume
sefer on Chumash called Daas Chachamim. Some of you may have it. On each
parsha, a summary is offered, a smattering of midrashim and commentaries,
connection to the Haftarah and then a series of pninim or vortlach. At
the end of Chayeh Sarah, in the vortlach, they had someone (probably a
rebbe of some sorts) commenting on the small kaf in v'livkosa (Bereshis
23:2). The person said (as quoted in the sefer) " the reason that there
is a small kaf is because of all of the inane reasons given for it being
tiny" (my free translation from memory). Unfortunately I lost volume one
somewhere and bought a replacement. It was not there in the later edition.

Elly krimsky

In his reply to RAM's question on Megillah 16b, M. Levin beautifully
illustrated his method of analyzing midrash by applying consistent
exegetical rules. For obvious reasons, he mentioned his "Midrash and
Method" website <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash> only very briefly. Hinneni
mgaleh b'makom shekisa. This site has much *very valuable* material
on the subject of learning midrash, a most neglected area of study. A
weekly analysis of a midrah on the parsha, usually from Midrash Rabba,
has been running for most of the year and is archived there; a weekly
email version is also available. I recommend this site highly.

Avodah members can find treasures right in their own back yard - on the
Aishdas website (there's a lot of other great stuff there too, v"akmal). 

Saul Mashbaum

 My question is:
> As this song is full of praise for the greatness of Rashby, is it 'derech
> eretz' or even halachically correct to halt our tefilos to the RBSO -
> to sing the praises of a bosor vodom - be it even the great Rashby? And
> noch in Shul?
> Are there any others cases where a man is praised mid-tefilah?

How about Yhonoson ish anvasan in Akdamus.

M. Levin

R' Micha Berger posted on: Jul 2, 2004:
> [The Malbim explicitly says that kol haTorah kulah can be reconstructed from
> TSBK and these 613 rules.] As for what to do with the Malbim on Emor
> [where he assumes the Rambam's definition of Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai,
> it being a remez-proof halachah--ZL], I don't know. It seems to be a
> setirah within the Malbim. As Emor is in the same volume as the intro
> to Vayiqra, it's hard to say the setirah is due to a change in shitah.

It's not a setirah. He wrote it in the introduction to Vayikra, too
(Ayyelless HaShachar, Rule #330). If he wrote there that all the Torah
Sheh b'al Peh can be derived from Scripture through drash (by the way,
where does he actually say this?) he meant it as a general rule, intending
to eventually explain that Halachah L'Moshe MiSinai is an exception. His
major point is that Chazal were not capricious in their reporting of oral
laws or in their methodology of connecting the laws to Scripture--when
they did so.

> : Thus the Malbim is in full accord with the Rambam, except for the slight
> : "k'naitch" that the Torah does indicate that there is, in the posuk,
> : an indication that there exists a Halachah L'Mosheh MiSinai regarding
> : the subject, which, nevertheless, cannot be derived through drash. (An
> : interesting turn.)

> To rephrase, just to make sure I understand:
> So you must be able to derive the fact that there is a din for every
> din, but what the din actually is may be only known by mesorah from
> Sinai.

Could you rephrase your rephrasing? I suspect some wrong keys on the
keyboard were keyed.

> As for RSRH, I said this issue merely touches upon the one of the nature
> of TSBK and that RSRH's opinion would fit the notion that it's all derivable.

When I cited Rav Hirsch's writings, verifying that he agrees that drashos
were used not only as support for known halachic details but also to
clarify unknown nuances, I was countering your belief that his position
was "that only dinim known through mesorah are given weight with derashah,
but nothing new is derived."

Kol Tuv,
Zvi Lampel 

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> In Orach Chaim #318 we learn that several Rishonim hold that ein bishul
> achar bishul b'lach. Yet several Acharonim (see Chavas Da'as Yoreh
> De'ah 94:4) hold that in the case of basar b'chalav there is bishul
> achar bishul. VIDC?

Meleches Shabbos is about creating a new status - Meleched
Machsheves. Once cooked is cooked forever.

In Bosor Beholov is both the action of cooking and anything which has
been cooked together which is disallowed.

Elozor Reich

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>> Need every pesaq in a machloqes reflect the existance of a
>> machloqes? If so, the poseiq is forced into an infinite regress.

> go, IOW if you are lookibng for a heter for something you are allowed
> to ask a Posek whom you think will likely give you one. What you are
> NOT allowed to do is ask shaila, get a psak, then go to another Posek
> for a different psak. once you ask a posek yoy have to follow his
> psak.

Where does this issur on psak shopping come from? ISTR seeing various
cases in the Gemara where, after arguing out a case, they bring a real
example, where the situation happened, they asked Rav A, who said X,
they brought it to Rav B, who also said X, etc. I'm not sure if there
are also cases where Rav B said not-X. But there does seem to be some
psak-shopping going on, or at least psak-polling. The upshot of which
is that it doesn't matter if you shop for psak, the outcome is the same.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

Jonathan Baker wrote:
>Where does this issur on psak shopping come from? ISTR seeing various
>cases in the Gemara where, after arguing out a case, they bring a real
>example, where the situation happened, they asked Rav A, who said X,
>they brought it to Rav B, who also said X, etc. I'm not sure if there
>are also cases where Rav B said not-X. But there does seem to be some
>psak-shopping going on, or at least psak-polling. The upshot of which
>is that it doesn't matter if you shop for psak, the outcome is the same.

This is discussed in volume 8 of the Encyclopeida Talmudis on the topic
of Hora'ah section 6. There are two basic reasons 1) it is disrespectful
of the first and conveys the impression that nothing in the Torah is
clearly definable. 2) Asking for a psak is to be viewed as a form of
neder which makes the psak binding on the one who asked. There are many
more issues and consequences. It also matters whether the second posek
is aware that he is being asked a second opinion and whether he feels
the first posek is mistaken and which type of mistake.

                Daniel Eidensohn

Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> Where does this issur on psak shopping come from? 

I have no printed source that specifically states the rule as I stated
it, although such sources may exist. But time after time in throughout
my Chinuch years my Rebbeim have emphasized this rule.

But it's logical isn't it? If one is allowed to shop for Psak then one
can just about write their own Torah. If you look long enough, or far
and wide enough, you can find ... SOMEONE... to give you a Heter for
just about anything. Why bother asking at all?

[Email #2. -mi]

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> ...It also matters whether the second posek 
> is aware that he is being asked a second opinion and whether he feels 
> the first posek is mistaken and which type of mistake.

This reminds me of an actual case where it was a matter of life and death
where one Posek paskined that life had to be perseved and the other,
R Shlomo Zalman Auebach, Paskined that it didn't. The case was tragic.

It involved a young cancer patient who was terminal and about to
expire. The doctors offered that they could do surgery on the patient
that would prolong his life a couple of weeks at most. This.. at great
pain. Both the mother and child (after many such surgeries) did not want
to go through with it. The father wanted to prolong his son's life as
much as possible. They asked one Posek and he said they had to do the
surgery. The mother then went to R. Shlomo and asked him the Shaila. He
Paskined that the surgery need not be done. But when the first Posek
found out about it he called R. Shlomo and asked if he was aware that
he had already Paskined. R. Shlomo had indeed not been aware of it and
withdrew his Psak.

HM

RDE:
>This is discussed in volume 8 of the Encyclopeida Talmudis on the topic 
>of Hora'ah section 6. There are two basic reasons 1) it is disrespectful 
>of the first and conveys the impression that nothing in the Torah is 
>clearly definable. 2) Asking for a psak is to be viewed as a form of 
>neder which makes the psak binding on the one who asked. There are many 
>more issues and consequences.  It also matters whether the second posek 
>is aware that he is being asked a second opinion and whether he feels 
>the first posek is mistaken and which type of mistake.

Neither of which sound like they are based in a legal source. Both are,
apparently, questions of respect for person and for Torah. But both
have holes.

It goes back to the old Avodah question of "what is psak"?

A) Is it a determination of existential reality in a Schrodinger's-cat
sense, that is, all the possibilities exist until the psak is made,
which condenses the possibility-vector into a real position?

B) Is it a temporary determination of behavior, out of a universe of
possible behaviors that continue to be valid within the mesorah?

Under (B), your reason 1 appears false, because many things are in fact
not definable, in the absence of a Sanhedrin.

(A) would seem to be the model of the Sanhedrin - but that doesn't exist
any more. And given the usual thing of "circumstances alter cases", and
what Micha said upthread about lack of objectivity in psak, it would
seem that biases of the rav would play almost as big a role as biases
of the questioner.

There's also the question of how one phrases the question. "Should I
take mixed karate classes" vs. "In order to improve I need to take mixed
karate classes, what should I do to preserve tznius". At least one rav
of my acquaintance has mentioned that he took smicha so he would know
how to ask a question.

Reason 2 makes more sense, in terms of the individual's behavior. OTOH,
what does the person then violate, if he slips up, or he asks someone
else: the neder, the underlying halacha, emunat chachamim?

I'll have to look it up. But in view of the various models of psak that
have been discussed in the past, and in view of the examples I mentioned
of Amoraim going psak-shopping or psak-polling, where does this come from?
The Amoraim are post-Sanhedrin, of course.

Reason 1 is about respect for the rav. Reason 2 is about respect for
self. How did these become law?

I saw Harry's comment, which is approximately your reason 1.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

The Gemara Bechoros 8: is apparently in error when it says that these
animals have a gestation period of 3 years. From the context, it seems
that the statement was meant literal, as opposed to allegorical. I think
that this Gemara is an example where it would be very diifficult to say
that the science of the Gemara is always right, as some in the Yeshiva
world including the Chazon Ish, seem to hold. I noticed that the Artscroll
Gemara is silent about this error. Is that a Shittah where they have no
way of resolving an apparent error?

Kol Tuv,
Yaakov Goldstein

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


[ 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         ]