Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 021

Tuesday, November 2 2004

• Re: Seeking Midrashic source that one should not favor one child over other children
• Aliyot origins
• Re: Sakranus - curiousity
• Re: Yishmael
• Re: Yishmael
• Re: Yishmael
• Re: Haftarah
• Re: Halloween
• Re: Businessmen v. consumers?
• Re: Intergenerational conflicts and Hilchos Shabbos
• Besamim Rosh
• Reacting to the death of a rasha
• Re: Cutting short pesukim
• lifney Iveyr
• Re: Berakhah for Misas Resha'im
• Re: Sakranus
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar
• Re: Zohar Forgery?

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>I recall a Midrash that we can learn from the story of Yaakov and Yosef
>that one should not favor one child over the others. Can anyone provide
>the citation or at least provide the exact language of the Midrash?

*Shabbos**(10b): *Rav said that a person should not show favoritism
to one of his children. It was because of a minor present that Yaakov
gave to Yosef -- more than his brothers -- that they became jealous of
him. The consequence of this jealousy was that our forefathers went into
exile in Egypt.

*Rambam**(Laws of Inheritance 6:13):* Our Sages commanded that a person
should not display favoritism to one of his children during his lifetime
-- even concerning a minor matter. This is in order to avoid disputes
and jealousy like we find with Yosef and his brothers.

Tur (Choshen Mishpat 282)

What is the origin for the aliyot in each perashah as we know it today?
How decided where each aliyah would begin and end?
Where is it 1st recorded?
Are these stops universal or are there other traditions and if so why?

Thanks,
Joseph Mosseri

Micha Berger wrote:
>I was asked:
>>I am doing project on the middah of Sakranus - Curiousity. I wondered if
>>anyone could inform me of some sources and possibly some insights of their
>>own.

I would assume that curiosity is related the issue of asking questions.

*Maharal****(Divrei Nagidim):* The person who doesn't know how to ask
a question is not far from being a wicked person. Even though he has
not reached the level of causing others to sin by ridiculing their
religion. By the fact that he doesn't have questions at all concerning
the commandments it appears that he has no relationship at all with
them. Therefore it is quite appropriate to answer him by saying that for
the sake of these mitzvos G-d did miracles for me in my redemption from
Egypt. This is to arouse his desire to take part in these mitzvos and
to understand that they have such great power that they brought about
the redemption... If he listens then it is well. If he doesn't then you
speak to him exactly as you speak to the wicked person. "For me and not
for you. If you had been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed."

*Rashi****(Shemos 13:5): *The Torah tells us to teach agada to the son
who doesn't know how to ask in order to arouse his interest.

*Ohr HaChaim**(Devarim 12:28): *The Zohar (Vayikra 123a) states that a
person's sins cause the gates of Torah understanding to be locked before
him. The Arizal stated that the gate to understanding Torah are the
questions which stand before a person. These questions are produced by the
klipah which are the results of a person's sins. That is why this verse
says that a person should observe the Torah and understand it. In other
words if you want to ascertain the truth of the Torah and to understand
it then it is critical that the commandments be fully observed. Proper
observance of the mitzvos is critical to be able to understand the Torah.

*Chofetz Chaim*" Without faith there are no answers [to fundamental
questions] and with faith there are no questions [that can invalidate
Judaism".

*Rav Yosef Ber Soloveitchik** (The Halakhic Mind) *... the problem of
evidence in religion will never be solved. The believer does not miss
philosophic legitimation; the skeptic will never be satisfied with any
cognitive demonstration. This ticklish problem became the Gordian knot of
many theological endeavors. Philosophers of religion would have achieved
more had they dedicated themselves to the task of interpreting concrete
reality in terms and concepts that fit into the framework of a religious
world perspective.

*Rav Chaim Brisker****(MeAtiki Shemuah): *Some ask how it is possible to
ask question about the Torah? They answer that in fact one can not ask
critical questions but can only raise questions rhetorically in order to
present the answers. Therefore questions are only permitted if they have
answers. Rav Chaim said that this is not correct but should be explained
in the following manner. In truth the entire basis of our permission to
ask questions and analyze the Torah is because the Torah was given in
this manner that questioning and analysis are critical to comprehending
the depths of the Torah. Therefore the question is itself made part of
the Torah. Consequently if a question is valid then both the question
and the answer are inherently part of the Torah itself. However if the
question is not itself Torah than in truth it is prohibited to ask the
question since the material is written in the Torah and therefore one
must accept what is written without any questions. Similarly there are
narratives in the Torah which must be interpreted and the questions raised
are themselves considered part of the Torah. However for those narratives
which are not to be analyzed then the questions are prohibited. In truth
if a question is prohibited to be asked than in fact it is not a question
at all. The 13 hermeneutic rules are in facts general principles which
determine how and if questions can be asked. One of these 13 hermeneutic
rules is that if two verses contradict each other than they need a third
verse to be reconciled. As long as we have only two contradictory verses
without the third verse we have no right to analyze the issue. Therefore
when Avraham heard the prophecy that he was to sacrifice his son he
was faced with two contradictory verses and therefore could not ask any
question at all since he had no right to analyze the issue. However when
the third verse occurred "Don't harm the youth" which could reconcile
the contradictions, Avraham then asked questions. It was only with the
existence of this third verse which enabled the questions and analysis
to produce a clarification and resolution of the contradictions. Someone
asked Rav Chaim that granted that the second verse requiring him to
sacrifice his son did not allow with to ask questions since he had no
way of resolving the issue. However couldn't Avraham have asked ג€"
not as a question -- but rather as a means of trying to understand
the matter? Furthermore if he asked the question perhaps he would have
discovered that another prophet had learned of the third verse that could
reconcile the contradictions? Rav Chaim answered that if Avraham viewed
the situation as one of two contradictory verses -- and therefore it was
not an issue that could be analyzed and questioning was prohibited --
than he would never have viewed that there was a question at all. It was
only with the occurrence of the third verse ג€" "Don't harm the youth"
ג€" than he started having questions. That is because only then was it
valid to analyze the issue and determine how the third verse resolved
the conflict.

Daniel Eidensohn

In a message dated 11/1/2004 11:27:19am EST,  dbnet@zahav.net.il writes:
> R'SBA questions: <<Can someone explain why the tzeirei in the word
> Yishmael [and Yizrael] is under the ayin rather than the alef?>>

> Because the alef is not pronounced. Other examples with alef: b'reishit,
> Daniel, haRuveni, rosh.

That begs the question. WHY isn't the aleph pronounced? According to
the meaning of the word, Yishma-El, it seems that davka the aleph and
not the ayin should be pronounced.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 01:16:34PM -0500, T613K@aol.com wrote:
: That begs the question. WHY isn't the aleph pronounced? According to
: the meaning of the word, Yishma-El, it seems that davka the aleph and
: not the ayin should be pronounced.

BTW, we find the same phenomenon in "Yechezqeil" and "Daniel". Tzeirei
under the quf, the alef unpronounced.

The alef barely exists. It's the difference between the official name
"Long Island" and what the natives call it "Lawn Guyland". It doesn't
drop out because it's less important, it drops out because it's less
existant to begin with.

See the thread titled "nikud" / "Nikud" in volume 8 issues numbering in
the late 30s.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Peter Marshall

"D&E-H Bannett" <dbnet@zahav.net.il>:
> For over a thousand years, the accepted tradition is that any letter
> without nikkud is not pronounced (except for the final letter in
> a word).

ah tis true tis true. however there is one exception. and that is the
curious minhog amongst some ba'alei q'rioh (AKA bal koirais) to pronounce
the name of yisokhor as "yisos'khor" -- as though the second shin had
a sh'voh noch (though ignoring the expectation of a following plosive
"k"). this either through sefer b'reishis or until b'midbor, thereafter
reverting to the usual yisochor pronunciation. Apparently related to
the shift in the recorded name of yisochor's son between b'reishis
and b'midbor. i.e. between "YOB" and "YSOB" and the "borrowing" of
a shin from yisos'khor which is subsequently no longer available for
pronunciation.

Mechy Frankel
michael.frankel@osd.mil	
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

"Schoemann, Danny (Danny)" <schoemann@lucent.com> stated the following
on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:39:16 +0100:

>> has anyone ever  seen somebody receiving mafter who just was one of 
>> the 7 keruem?
...
>2. Never seen it done besides for Simchat Torah when it was sold "too
>late" or the buyer forgot to inform the recipient. It's not really
>allowed, as per OC 282:5 unless nobody else can read the maftir (or
>knows the correct tune on Shabbat Chazon).

Actually, the Teimanim can call the same person twice when in both cases he 
is one of the seven (say, shelishi and shishi).  Just not one right after 
the other.

Sound strange?  Just ask a Teimani.

~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

In Avodah V14 #19 dated 10/30/2004 Chana Luntz <Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> writes:
> It is one thing if the act in question is one with dubious origins.
> But giving candy to visitors is hachnasos orchim, and I struggle to
> see how the pagan origins of tricking or treating (ie the reason these
> people happen to turn up at one's door) operate overrule the obligations
> of hachnasos orchim ....

FWIW when we lived in Newport News in the sixties, my father told us
to give candy to trick-or-treaters because of darkei sholom.

To add my own two cents, the holiday in those days was a light-hearted
children's holiday that had lost its old pagan associations. However,
today the holiday has taken on a much darker, gruesome mood, with death,
the devil, ghosts, witches, blood, skulls and so on being pervasive
themes of the "celebration." It is ironic that the schools which have
banished G-d and organized religion have welcomed and openly encourage the
celebration of two pagan holidays, the holiday of death and the holiday
of sex. (Yes, Halloween and Valentine's Day are openly celebrated in
US public schools, and even in the more MO Jewish schools.) I don't
know what to make of this bizarre development, nor how my father
would posken today in light of the moral decline this develop ment
betokens. Fortunately there don't seem to be any trick-or-treaters in
my neighborhood.

 -Toby  Katz
=============

In  Avodah V14 #20 dated 11/1/2004 RAM writes:
> R'SBA  pretty much cut to the core of the question by asking
>> Lechoreh AIUI we  are discussing whose interests come first - the
>> consumers or the  shopkeepers?
[snip]
> Coincidentally enough, I came across a gemara  last week which seems to
> support this same idea.

> In Shmoneh Esreh, the ninth bracha, "Barech Alenu", is generally
> understood as being for parnassa. The text of the bracha refers to the
> "tvuah" and the weather. My presumption had always been that... the
> request is for an abundant crop, so that the farmer could feed his
> family and even have some extra to sell.

> But the gemara in Megilla 17b, near the bottom, if I'm  understanding
> it correctly, actually says something very  different....
> that this bracha is a tefilah against  price-gougers.

There are two ways for a farmer or shopkeeper to make a good parnassah.
One is to sell something in short supply at a high price, and the other
is to sell a large volume at a small markup. In the latter case, both
the seller and the buyer benefit from the abundance of the product,
whatever it is. Thus, abundant tevuah would be a bracha for both the
farmer and the consumer.

For an example of Chazal worrying about the welfare of the consumer,
isn't there something in the Gemara about a takana that women should
bring birds rather than animals for a korban after childbirth?

 -Toby  Katz
=============

As a halacha (and gemara) teacher of American students in Israel for the
year, this issue is a daily struggle for me. I think that a few issues
have to be kept in mind:

1. I believe that teaching halacha is one of the more difficult
disciplines of limude kodesh, and the issue of psak, especially when it
contradicts the practice of the student and his/her family, presents a
great challenge to the teacher. Personally, I make it clear to my students
that while I am happy to "paskin" privately for students, many issues
cannot be ruled definitively for large audiences. Students often come
from different communities, different traditions, and different family
situations which may demand special halachic sensitivity. It is not my
job to definitively instruct students whether they may make tea in a
keli shelishi , but rather to teach them that there is a long-standing
machlokes regarding this issue (including Rav Eilya Pruzna's tradition
of making tea in a keli sheni, practiced by Rav Soloveitchik, and his
students Rabbis Shachter and Lichtenstein). It is also not my role to tell
them they they MAY NOT use the eruvin sanctioned by their communities. Not
only do I find that method of teaching inappropriate, but I am humble
enough to know that it is far from me to "put my head between great
mountains". They can push me into expressing my own recommendation,
they can ask my privately what I think they should do, but they can't
convince me to criticize the practices of those who follow the psakim
of the gedole yisrael. I think that sensitivity and common sense are
important for all teachers of Torah, and I hope that most teachers out
there have a healthy dose of both.

2. Regarding "intergenerational conflicts" - I am consistently shocked
and amazed by the ignorance of many Orthodox families regarding basic
kashrus and shabbos halachos. Some practices are almost impossible to
justify (including common use of the blech (except for Rav Ovadia Yosef's
view) and oven on shabbat, bishul akum and amira lenochri by non-Jewish
household help, etc) and therefore I spend time discussing the sugya of
"mayse shabbos" and "bediavad" when may one be lenient. Not every issue
is worth fighting about, and iy"h my students will soon have their own
homes, where they can adopt different standards than their parents.

3. I think Steve Brizel compiled an interesting list of examples,
I could add many more for those who are interested.

I would just like to comment on a few of them:

3) placing cold food on the blech when you get home from shul

a serious problem, but permitted for food which was on the fire during
bein hashmashos according to the Yerushalmi, Ran, and common practice
during the time of the Rema, and the ruling of Rav Soloveitchik.

4) stirring soup with ladle

We are machmir le-chatchila (acc to the kol bo) not to (while on the
fire, even if fully cooked) - but it is hardly an issue to worthy of
yelling at one;s parents..

5) kli rsihon vs kli sheni vs kli shlishi for coffee and tea and use of
tea bags and instant coffee

Keli Rishon presents a serious problem, as does tea in keli sheni
according to most poskinm. instant coffee theoretically should be
permitted even in a keli rishon (ein bishul achar bishul), but due to
a chumra cited by the mishna berura, many make it in a keli sheni.

6) placing cholent in crockpot or on blech in uncooked fashion or not
even maacal ben drusai as of candle lighting time

A blech solves the problem of shehiyya, and therefore ot shouldn't be
problem. If a crockpot has a "blech" - it is also permitted. Even without
a blech it is most likely "kedera chayyasa" - which is permitted right
before shabbos (although the SS"C discourages relying upon this heter).

7) use of blech or crockpot without regulation of source of heat

not sure what that means, but usually - the possibility of regulating
heat makes the hotplate or crockpot MORE problematic.

Kol Tov,
David Brofsky
Alon Shvut

In the Pardes Yoef on the Torah (10 Vol new edition) Kedoshim 19 3 page
430 is a brief discussion about the authenticity of the sefer Besamim
Rosh

meir

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> One person asked if the berakhah can be said when Arafat's death is
> announced, given the likelihood ... that they won't admit he's deceased
> until after the successor is ready to assume power....

> I guess the basic question is whether the berakhah is on the event or
> on learning about it, and if the latter, at what point does it become
> history rather than the subject of a berakhah?

> Our chaver, R' Shlomo Argamon responded:
>> I would think "hatov vehametiv", since it benefits all of us...

> To which RDCJBackon replied:
>> Correct. See: Orach Chayim 222:1. Curiously, see OC 224:3 ['ha'ro'eh
>>  b'chol h'rish'a] which is a special blessing.

I looked and am not convinced that a brocho should be made. The MB
[sk 1] writes that - eg - one who has been robbed, can only make the
brocho if the 'gazlan' has been arrested - AND the gezeileh returned.

Arafat's pegireh - really means nothing. We have no idea if his
replacement will be any better or CV worse.

BTW the MB quotes the Pri Megodim that 'hayom memaatim bebrochos elu'.

See there, the halocho about a poor man who marries a rich woman -
against his wishes, makes 2 brochos - Hatov veHametiv and Dayan Ho'emes...
[Same as when someone loses a father - but will be inheriting his fortune,
though I have never heard anyone doing so.]

==============================
OLD POST:   micha@aishdas.org 
> Richard Butler y"sh, the leader of a group called "Aryan Nations"
> died yesterday.
> The person who told me the news quoted the pasuq "be'avud resha'im rina".
> By "coincidence", this was shortly after I posted to scj(m) the story of
> how Shemu'el haQatan was chosen to write birkhas haminim. That it was
> probably because we learn in Avos 4:10 that he often repeated Mishlei
> 24:17-18, "binfol oyivkha al tismach; uvikashlo al yageil libekha...."

So, which should be our response -- "rina" or "al tismach ... al yageil"?

Lehalocho, see the KSA [201:4] quoting Rambam [Hilchos Eivel 1:10].

It is obviously talking about Rishei Yisroel, mumrim, mosrim and apikorsim
who are not to be mourned after
"...acheihem veshaar keroveihem...ochlim veshosim usmeichim al 
she'ovdu sonoy shel Mokom...Ve'aleihem hakosuv omer,,,
baavod reshoim rinoh..." ayen shom.

SBA

In a message dated 10/24/2004 11:05:16am EST, Mlevinmd@aol.com writes:
> As is well known, there is a principle of kol pasuk dlo paskei Moshe anan
> lo paskinan. This comes up in several places, such as kiddush Friday night
> etc. Why is this principle so widely disregarded in piyutim where pieces
> of pesukim are costantly compbined and recombined. F.e.,hashem melech,
> hashem moloch, . hashm imloch?

There was a thread on this many years ago.
ub the example above, Moseh Rabbeinu probably did not make the psukkim
in Tehillim and therefore the rule probably applies only to psukkim that
Moshe did make - iow in the Chumash.

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

In both Simanim 163 and 169 the prohibition of Lifney Iveyr is mentioned.

163, the Rema prohibits feeding another who has not washed Netilas
Yodayim. (btw the attribution to Rabbenu Yona seems to be misplaced)

169 the Mechaber prohibits giving food unless sure that the recipient
will make a Beracha. The Rema adds that some are lenient if it is given
to a pauper, as Tzedaka.

The source of these is Chulin 107b, "One may not place bread in the mouth
of the waiter unless he knows the waiter has washed Netilas Yodayim."

QUESTIONS
Why does the Mechaber 169, not quote the Gemara's Halacha but a modified
version?

Is it not noteworthy that the Mechaber 163 seems to be quoting the RaMBaM
(Berachos 6; 18) word for word (Tur's wording is different) yet omits
the next Halacha of the RaMBaM, which is quoted more or less by the Rema?

meir

>Should anyone be saying a brocho before knowing for certain that Arafat's
>replacement won't be a bigger rasha than him?

I wouldn't think so. We see from the Mishna in Brochos 9:3 that on a
windfall that will eventually cause grief we make a Hatov/Shehechiyanu.

We don't seem to make brochos on future expectations, AFAIK.

- Danny

RMB was asked:
> I am doing project on the middah of Sakranus - Curiousity. I wondered if
> anyone could inform me of some sources and possibly some insights of their
> own.

The Rambam (IIRC in the first few chapters of Hil. Yesodie haTorah)
explains that Yiras and Ahavas Shomayim is the result of "analysing"
the wonders of creation. This would require a fair amount of curiosity -
a positive type of curiosity.

The CC in Shmiras haLoshon (IIRC - in the recent daily lesson) quotes
the Igeres haGro about the virtues of staying at home and minding your
own business. This highlights the evils of curiosity.

The mussar seforim also talk about another evil of curiosity; "the eyes
see and then the heart covets".

In conclusion, we could say:
 - Curiosity about creation is good. Work on developing it.
 - Curiosity about other people and their possessions is bad. Work on
   getting rid of it.

- Danny

I wrote:
>: Three issues with your reasoning:
>: a) the Zohar isn't that big of a 'hidush when you realize that much
>: of its content was already common fare in the days of RMdL. The Zohar
>: should be seen as an extension of Gerona/Castillian Kabbalah, and not
>: as a revolution

RMB replied:
> Far from being an issue with my reasoning, it's the point being
> proved! Either way, the Zohar can't be viewed as a discontinuity in the
> mesorah. The ideas in the book couldn't be novel. So how significant
> is the age of the text itself? The question has been distilled of its
> nafqa mina lema'aseh.

Well, I didn't say that the Zohar created a massive break with previous
tradition. However, the Zohar is part of a greater 'hiddush. If the
Zohar wasn't written during RSBY's or his disciples' lifetimes, we have
no significant record of their opinions regarding Zoharic kabbalah. Just
like the Zohar is, at it was published, a product of the 13th Century,
so too is the Bahir most likely a prodct of the 11th Century, based on
earlier sources, with some 'hiddush introduced by the author. Whether the
earlier source was the Sefer haRazim, as Scholem claims, or a larger, more
complete work, as Elliot Wolfson once suggested ito me in a conversation,
is anyone's guess. (we don't have any extant likely sources of the Bahir)

Lema'aseh, this means that, while we shouldn't dismiss everything in
the Zohar (or anything) as a forgery, we shouldn't accept is as RSBY's
or even Mosheh Rabbenu's (as per R. Ashlag's suggestion) work. It has
much less authority than that, and should be discussed on its own merrit,
and compared to opinions of various Rishonim. (not that that is easy. Try
reading Ramban for an understanding of his kabbalah. Very daunting task. I
just tried it and got nearly nowhere, except that I finally learned the
entire commentary of Ramban on Torah. Still, I couldn't understand much
of his kabbalah.)
-- 
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 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 Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

R Arie Folger wrote:
> Well, I didn't say that the Zohar created a massive break with previous
> tradition. However, the Zohar is part of a greater 'hiddush. If the Zohar
> wasn't written during RSBY's or his disciples' lifetimes, we have no
> significant record of their opinions regarding Zoharic kabbalah....

I wasn't responding to you in particular when I posted my argument for
the antiquity of Zohar-esque qabbalah. I was thinking more of the MO crowd
who dismiss the Zohar, as well as neo-Brisker Rambamists (talmidim of R'
Chait and the like).

However, if it's truly part of mesorah, than the opinion of rishonim is
not significantly different in terms of their effect on pesaq than if
it were the opinion of acharonim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tuesday 02 November 2004 16:14, Micha Berger wrote:
> However, if it's truly part of mesorah, than the opinion of rishonim is not
> significantly different in terms of their effect on pesaq than if it were
> the opinion of acharonim.

You didn't understand me well. The Zohar contains 'hiddushim (I saw some
of them, including the evidence of why they are 'hidushim). Some are
greater than others and I don't have an exhaustive list. Since we don't
know how old the oldest material of the Zohar is, but we know that some
is from RMdL, we should see what others write and evaluate the Zohar in
light of it. The Zohar has, in my opinion (and I believe it is based on
strong arguments) a much lower masoretic authenticity seal than, say,
the Talmud. That it contains much authentic, ancient material, whether
or not from RSBY, is irrelevant, since without extensive research one
cannot know what is from RSBY. A bit like saying that the Meiri has
the authenticity of an a'haron because the ktav yad was unknown until a
century or so ago, except that nobody is known to have doctored the Meiri.

Arie Folger
-- 
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 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 Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:01:27PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: You didn't understand me well. The Zohar contains 'hiddushim....
:                                                          Since we don't
: know how old the oldest material of the Zohar is, but we know that some
: is from RMdL, we should see what others write and evaluate the Zohar in
: light of it....

You're right that I don't understand.

I think we're both speaking about whether there is a lema'aseh difference.
In which case, I fail to see a nafqa mina lehalakhah between whether an
acharon is reluctant to pasqen against the Zohar because it's a rishon,
or whether it is the greater problem of pasqening against a tanna. In
either case, on the lema'aseh plane, the outcome is the same, and ought to
be the same.

As for the hashkafic weight... there the issue of who set precedent is
far less important anyway.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A person must be very patient
micha@aishdas.org        even with himself.
http://www.aishdas.org         - attributed to R' Nachman of Breslov
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

In a message dated 10/25/2004 6:04:02am EST, rwdnick@yahoo.com writes:
> As to if the Zohar or parts therein are fogeries, the best discussion
> of this issue can be found in Tishby's Misnat HaZohar, vol. 1 the
> introduction. This work is also available in English, Wisdom of the
> Zohar. Tishby devotes the bulk of his 150+ page intro to all the opinions
> regarding this issue.

What if the body of the book was "emes" but the attirubtions were "phony"
or what is called pseudopegrphic? would that make the book a forgerie?

EG Let's say that some sugya is attributed to R. Shimon bar Yochai but
was really not his, yet nevertheless conformed to Kabblistic tradition ...

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

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


[ 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         ]