Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 012

Sunday, May 15 2005

• Re: tachlis [was: Rambam and miracles]
• Re: Rambam and miracles
• Re: Rambam and miracles
• Tachanun on Erev Pesach Sheni
• Re: Rambam and miracles
• Re: Teaching Children Midrashim
• Re: Reality of the Universe
• Re: authority of poskim in the realm of hashkafa
• Re: Re Teaching Childen Midrashim
• Re: Torah before Sinai
• Question on the Rambam
• Re: YGB: Bava Basra Halachah l'Ma'aseh
• Query Re Chazorat Ha-Shatz
• Re: Kitniyos and bitul
• Re: Lfnim mshurat hadin
• Re: Lfnim mshurat hadin
• RE: Query Re Chazorat Ha-Shatz
• re: Question on the Rambam
• Re: YGB: Bava Basra Halachah l'Ma'aseh

In  Avodah V15 #10 dated 5/11/2005 RDI writes: 
>:> But Hashem is "beli reishis beli sachlis". [--RMB]
>: To me  that statement just tells us that He is infinite. [--RHM]

Daniel  Israel:
> I once suggested to someone, based on the modern usage of  "tachlis"
> as "purpose," that this meant HaShem has no purpose. ....
> My  friend rejected this on the grounds that there is no mekor to justify
> this  use of "tachlis" in classical Hebrew. Any comments?

We have a similar use of the word "end" in English, where it can mean
both the end/finish and the purpose/goal. IMO the word /tachlis/ as
"goal or purpose" is a secondary meaning of the word, derived from its
primary meaning, which is "finish, end-point." That is, once someone or
something has achieved the end for which it was created (achieved its
goal or purpose) it is also at an end/finish and does not need to exist
any longer.

In the case of 'beli reishis beli sachlis" the obvious parallelism of
the phrase compels the translation of tachlis as the opposite of reishis.
Without a beginning, without an end.

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

>I once suggested to someone, based on the modern usage of "tachlis"
>as "purpose," that this meant HaShem has no purpose....

>My friend rejected this on the grounds that there is no mekor to justify
>this use of "tachlis" in classical Hebrew. Any comments?

Given that "tachlis" is given as the opposite of "reishis", it's
mistaber that it's meant as infinite.

>> Tachlis is more than just an end.

See Metzudos on Tehilim 139 "tachlis sinah saneisim", "sof hasinah
sh'ein lema'alah heimenu". IOW tachlis is a situation where there is
nothing beyond it.

 - Avigdor Feldstein

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:21:30AM -0400, myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
: Given that "tachlis" is given as the opposite of "reishis", it's
: mistaber that it's meant as infinite.

But rosh also doesn't just mean start. There's a reason for "reish
gelusah" or the use of the word for a biological head.

Again, here's my basic philosophical problem. To last for an infinite
amount of time still is within time. I would rather say HQBH has no time,
just as the notion "1+1=2" has no color or weight. Not of infinite extent
on the timeline, but not on the line at all.

Beli reishis beli sachlis or Atah Hu harishon ve'Atah hu ha'acharon,
as others seem to take it, would not make Him lema'alah min hazeman!
Infinite time is not a negative attribute.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 18th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Tifferes: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             balance?

On Areivim, R' Joel Rich asked <<< Does anyone know why we say tachanun
erev pesach sheini but not erev other non-tachanun days (not counting
R"H and Y"K) >>>

As my LOR, listmember Rav Elazar Teitz has explained on several occasions:

The normal practice is to skip tachanun on the holiday and at the tefilah
prior to the holiday. The unusual thing about Pesach Sheni is not that
we don't skip tachanun on Erev Pesach Sheni. Rather, the unusual thing
about Pesach Sheni is that the holiday exists only in the afternoon,
and therefore skipping tachanun on that morning accomplishes "skipping
it at the tefilah prior to the holiday."

(I presume that the same logic might apply to Erev Pesach Rishon, were
it not for the minhag to skip tachanun all Nisan long.)

Similarly, the unusual thing about Erev RH and Erev YK is *not* that
we don't skip tachanun at the mincha before them, but rather that the
skipping of tachanun is extended for *two* tefilos prior to the holiday,
not just one.

(Note: In this post, I deliberately used the ambiguous word "holiday"
(rather than "yom tov" or some other term) so as to include all sorts
of special days on which we skip tachanun, whether Shabbos or 15 Av
or whatever.)

Akiva Miller

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:21:30AM -0400, myb@yeshivanet.com wrote:
:> Tachlis is more than just an end.

: See Metzudos on Tehilim 139 "tachlis sinah saneisim", "sof hasinah
: sh'ein lema'alah heimenu". IOW tachlis is a situation where there is
: nothing beyond it.

I didn't say it wasn't. I said it meant more than that.

In the case of the RSO, I don't know how we can discuss "beyond it", though,
even to say "nothing".

:-)BBii!
-mi

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: /This/ explanation? The p'sukim state that through the
>: blowing of the wind, the waters stood up as walls (in what
>: form? Liquid? Solid? Frozen? ...

> "Kemo neid nozelim".

Yes, but were they still nozelim at the time that nitzvu kemo neid?
Or did nitzevu kemo neid interrupt their existence as nozelim?

On Sun, May 08, 2005 at 02:34:48PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
: Sefer Ikkarim, Maamar Sheyni, chap. 27:
: "It is clear therefore that the word "nimtza" (existent) cannot truly
: be predicated of any existing thing except G-d.... Therefore, the
: word "existent" applies to Him more truly than to any other existing
: thing.... The word "nimtza" applies truly to one whose existence is not
: dependent upon any other, but on his own essence...Hence, /there is
: none among existing things to which the word existent applies truly/
: except G-d, whose existence depends upon His own essence and not upon
: another's. Hence, /His/ existence is a true existence (metziaso metsius
: amitti)."

: In the previous discussion, R. Micha Berger disagreed with my
: understanding of the Rambam. The Rambam says that Hashem is the only
: "emmes," and that everything He created is dependent upon and persists
: only through His Will, but is not as permanent as He. I took it to mean
: that only Hashem (truly) exists. R. Micha, IIUC, takes it to mean that
: the universe's existence is less permanent, but that "as long as" it
: exists, the existence is as real as Hashem's.

I'm sorry, I was not clear enough for you to understand correctly. I
believe the Rambam is saying that only Hashem's existance isn't
contingent, it does not depend on something else causing it, which if
withdrawn would cause it to end.

The Ikkarim is saying that the word "nimtza" refers not only to existance,
but to a lack of contingency, and therefor "The word "nimtza" applies
truly to one whose existence is not dependent upon any other, but on his
own essence." But I think it's wrong to continue as you do, and use the
word "existent" in the translation:
: Hence, /there is
: none among existing things to which the word existent applies truly/
: except G-d

He isn't saying man is less existing, but that he is less nimtza because
is existence is contigent upon something other than his own essence.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

The following, from <http://www.zootorah.com/controversy> by RNS, seems to
address R' Gershon Seif's question about the origin of "makchish magideha":

> The primary point of contention appears to be my position that the Sages of
> the Talmud were mistaken in certain scientific matters. Some claim that this
> is the lone view of Rabbeinu Avraham ben HaRambam that is not part of our
> mesorah (tradition). But, contrary to popular belief, this view was held of
> by many prominent Rishonim and Acharonim, including Rambam, Ramban, Rashba,
> Rav Yitzchok Lampronti, Maharam Shick, and Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch,
> amongst others (see the Sources page for details). It was endorsed for
> dissemination in our generation by many Torah scholars such as Rabbi Shlomo
> Zalman Auerbach z"l and is considered by all my rabbonim to be a legitimate
> position. I am aware that some nevertheless side with those authorities that
> condemned this view (notably the Leshem), but they are condemning a large
> number of Rishonim and Acharonim along with me.

> The condemnation of me as "makchish maggideha" - denying the authority of
> the Sages - appears untenable in light of the fact that the title makchish
> magideha was established by Rambam (Hilchos Teshuvah 3:8) who himself held
> that Chazal were mistaken in certain scientific matters! In fact, Rambam
> explicitly defines makchish maggideha as "someone similar to Tzaddok and
> Baytus," who Rambam explains denied the very concept of an Oral Torah
> (Perush haMishnayos, Sanhedrin 11:3). He certainly did not intend it to
> refer to someone who denies that Chazal were infallible in science, as he
> would then have been defining himself as a heretic!

So, it would seem that while MM dates back to the Rambam, the extension
from denying the authority of rabbanim to create and interpret din to
their authority in other matters is just that -- an extension of the
original term. This means that RGSeif's question is to a large extent
still open: Who enlarged the definition?

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:55:50AM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
:> "Kemo neid nozelim". 

: I assume you're being me'dayyik the word "nozelim" (Sh'mos 15:8) to mean
: the waters were fluid. Nice observation! But look at the meforshim for
: several possibilities as to what this means. For instance, according
: to the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh, the phrase means "the waters that had
: heretofore been fluid, now for the B'nai Yisroel became like a 'neid,'....

Actually, I was citing the pasuq to say that it was in a state not
normally experienced -- both a neid and nozeil, at the same time!
If a liquid could be dam and water at the same time, why not?

Thanks for the meqoros, though. I'm disappointed, I so wanted this
paradox to be true...

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 05:38:07PM -0400, Zilberberg, David wrote:
: In addition, where do we see in the torah that the all pre-Sinai mitzvos
: were repeated at Sinai?

You're not the first to ask, but I don't get the question. Was not
Bereishis given in Sinai? If so, why wouldn't Hashem's retelling of the
commanding of piryah verivyah milah, gid hanasheh, rosh chodesh, Shabbos,
et al qualify?

The inyan is primarily at Sanhedrin 59a-b.

The rule is that all mitzvos given before Sinai and not repeated (except
in the text describing the first command) are for Benei Yisrael only
and not benei Noach. Those that are repeated belong to all people.

This is counter-intuitive, although I think the question I asked above
points toward a possible resolution. Anything given only in Bereishis
or early Shemos is like any mitzvah. However, by repeating the mitzvah,
it implies that the telling in Bereishis was for a different reason than
the normal tzivui -- the tzivui to all people.

Alternatively, we are the inheritors of the spiritual legacy of Adam,
Noach, the Avos, and the generations up to Sinai. Therefore a tzivui
to them devolves to only being to us. If the tzivui is to Noach qua
ancestor of Jews, there would be no need to repeat it during the beris
Sinai. However, if it's to all his children, then it's in the beris
Noach and need repetition for beris Sinai.

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Sun, 8 May 2005 Michael Beyo wrote:
> Why does the Rambam in Hilhot Melahim cap 11, says the Rabbi Akiva
> 'imagined' (dima') that Bar Koziva is Mashiah? Is it possible to say that
> the Rambam used this verb because according to him Koah aMedame is not
> constructive and can lead to false immaginations? And that what brought
> Rabbi Akiva to immagine that Bar Koziva was mashiah was not based on a
> rational/logic deduction?

I don't believe so. See Hoshea Perek 12 Pasuk 11 "uviyad haneveim adameh".
Hashem reveals himself to the neveim through the koach haDimyon. The
Ramchal (klach pischei chochmah pesach 7 & 8) speaks at length about the
parameters of dimyon and uses his conclusions (based on his delineation of
this pasuk) to resolve apparent stiros in kabala. Accordingly, "dimyon"
(loosely translated as "imagination") need not be a negative thing per
se. However, when used in certain context, such as "olam haDimyon",
it is certainly negative. I just think the Rambam meant to say that R'
Akiva *believed* that Ben Koziva was Mashiach, that's all.

Simcha Coffer

In message , Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer <rygb@aishdas.org> writes
>Post: Bava Basra Halachah l'Ma'aseh
>Link: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/bava-basra-halachah-lmaaseh.html

The case as set out in this blog is as follows:
>I am interested in a specific case involving myself and a neighbor. I have
>been living in my home for 26 years. I have had a neighbor for 22 of those
>years that shares a divided driveway, divided by a gate. After neighbor of
>22 years moved out, a new neighbor now wants to claim 6 inches as his
>property. Meaning the gate now must be moved 6 inches closer into my 
>home. What are the laws, if any and please relate it to the time my residency
>time is involved.

>My [RYGB's] response:
>The issue presents interesting halachic issues. The question of chezkas 
>tashmishim, discussed at the end of the third perek of Bava Basra 
>clashes here with the question of ownership. That is, from the third 
>perek of BB we now that no matter how much time has elapsed, if the 
>other party can produce a shtar (in this case, a deed), the land is his 
>- as the chazakah of three years is only effective in cases in which 
>there is no document extant. Thus, it is clear that you cannot assert 
>ownership. OTOH, it would seem that you have a chezkas tashmishin to 
>use your neighbor's chatzer. I think, however, that such chezkas 
>tashmishin only works where there was no physical encroachment on the 
>neighbor's property, but only usage. Indeed, on the contrary, there is 
>a she'eilah here of hasogas gevul mamash. Hence, I regret to say, it 
>seems to me that your neighbor is within his rights.

>But this was written only as a quick opinion, not as an halachic 
>decision!

Commenting on this case on the blog:
>At Monday, May 09, 2005 8:54:01 AM, Rael Levinsohn said:

>In such a situation where does the inyan of "dina da malchut dina" fit 
> in if for example there is a conflict between what civil law and torah 
> law would say on this issue?

>At Monday, May 09, 2005 9:07:40 AM, YGB said:
>That is a machlokes between the Ritva and Rabbeinu Yonah (e.g., as to 
>whether in a Din Torah between two Jews the dina d'malchusa need be 
>taken into account). I know a certain sefer on Bava Basra that 
>discusses the issue at length. :-)

Two questions/comments:

a) given that it is a machlokus, and the neighbour is the one requiring
that the gate be moved, and hence is the one that would need to go to
beis din to change the status quo, why does not the questioner have the
right to state that he is relying on the opinion that dina d'malchusa
dina needs to be taken into account as a valid defence?

b) is it really true that the other party can be said to produce a
"shtar (in this case a deed)"? I don't know how it is under the law
of the American State where this is occurring, but under English law
these days, it is extremely rare for anybody to prove title by means
of title deeds. The reason is that around 50 years ago, the Government
legislated to set up the Land Registry, and required that all land,
when it was next transferred, be registered at the Land Registry.
Once land becomes registered land by virtue of being registered at the
Land Registry, title is no longer proved by means of title deeds, but
by means of registration at the Land Registry. So production of a deed
in the case of registered land means nothing, what one has to show to
prove title is registration at the Land Registry.

Now in addition there is a concept under English law (and I am pretty
sure that it was a concept that American law took from English law) of
"adverse possession". That means that if somebody is in possession of
property without protest for a certain period of time (set by statute
these days, but at least in England less than 26 years), then that
person becomes the legal owner of the land, and can apply to be legally
recognised as such. In the case of registered land, that would mean by
going through a procedure (possibly involving the courts) which would
result in the Land Registry modifying the entry in the register.

Now all this can be done without reference to any other person. ie if I
am in adverse possession of a piece of property, I can apply for me to
be legally registered as the owner and the case is fundamentally between
me and the Land Registry (although no doubt the Land Registry will want
to try and determine whether in fact there was protest from the legal
owner of the land over which I am claiming adverse possession).

And if I get the Land Registry entry amended to show that I am the legal
owner of the property, then that, for the purposes of English law, is
what makes me the legal owner, and the other person has no title to show.

So I can't quite see how this neighbour, under English law at any rate,
could ever produce a halachic shtar. [Interesting side note, when we
bought our current house, we bought it from an elderly bachelor in his
90s, who had inherited it from his parents who had bought it from the
original builder in 1925, before land was required to be registered.
So when we bought it, it was unregistered land. But as part of the sale,
one of the legal obligations incumbent on our solicitor was to send the
title deeds to the Land Registry and get it registered. He then sent
us the title deeds (once they were returned from the Land Registry) to
us as a courtesy, but they are now of curio value only (they are very
pretty with some grand copperplate handwriting), and cannot be used to
prove title. And certainly in the case of our old house, we bought and
sold it without ever receiving anything approximating a title deed.]

So I would have thought, vis a vis dinei mamonus, there would be no
obligation on the person to move the gate, and that a beis din would not
require it since no valid title to the land could be proved. On the other
hand, if the person indeed originally committed the issur of hasogas
gvul, it might be that b'yadei shamayim the person is indeed chayav,
and if they are a yerei shamayim might well want to move the gate or
come to some accommodation with their neighbour.

Shabbat Shalom
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On Wed, 11 May 2005 "Rich, Joel" asked:
> IF the shatz is not fulfilling any chiyuv for those of us who can daven,
> then why should we so stand; what exactly are we doing.

I have a personal minhag which I adopted based on RYBS shita (I heard from
two different talmidim that this was his shita). Whenever I daven for
the amud, I wait for the tzibur to finish modim d'rabanan and then say
the shatz's modim out loud. I imagine that R' Yosha Ber's reasoning for
this is because the chachamim were misaken chazaras hashatz specifically
for one who is not a baki and thus, he (the eino baki) must hear every
word, not be mafsik, stand with his feet straight etc.

Even if everyone was yotzei shmoneh esrei already, we still repeat
chazaras hashatz to be mikayem the takanas chachamim and thus, regarding
the above question, I simply see RYBS as attempting to uphold the takanas
chachamim (see Orach Chaim siman 124 sif 3 and 4) to the greatest extent
possible, that's all. IOW, just as RYBS would require the shliach tzibur
to say modim out loud so the tzura of the original takanas chachamim
would be emulated bishleimuso, so too, he would stand quietly, not
be mafsik and even stand straight as if he was being yotzei with the
shatz. I think my explanation of the RYBS shita makes sense but I am
not a personal talmid so I might be wrong.

Incidentally, the MB paskens that the shatz says his modim together with
the tzibur so anyone who doesn't follow RYBS shita has al mi lismoch.

Simcha Coffer

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> The whole discussion is whether EMIL is in reality a form of onesh, or if
> the person knowing the item went in destroys its ability to be batul. IOW,
> if its sevarah is a more extreme but related one to that of KH. The nafqa
> minah might be the case in the subject line, a Sepharadi who wouldn't
> incur an onesh for intentially putting qitniyos in the chamin on Pesach.
> Now he wants to serve this chamin to an Ashkenazi.

I was originally thinking in terms of onesh, or rather "chotei niskar".

But here's a 3rd theory (or maybe a version of the 2nd theory): perhaps
the logic behind EMIL is that since it was put in deliberately, it can't
possibly be insignificant. E.g., the reason for bitul beshishim is that
it's assumed not to be nosen taam; but if it really didn't give a taam,
why would the recipe call for it? Obviously in this case it does give
a taam, and that taam is lishevach and desired, so it can't be batel.
In other words, "achsheveih".

In our case, the Sefardi cook put the beans in the chamin for their
own sake, not in order for them to give a taam to the meat. Now we have
two possibilities: if he was not expecting an Ashkenazi guest, then the
beans' status as assurim leAshkenazim was almost certainly not even on his
mind, so not only was there no "achsheveih", he wasn't even consciously
aware that he *was* being mevatel issur. But let's assume that he knew
the Ashkenazi was coming, and he knew that this bittul was going on,
and intended for it to happen.

I'd say that it's still muttar, even if we don't say that EMIL is a
penalty to prevent "chotei niskar", but rather we adopt this theory that
it's because of "achsheveih". The fact is that even though he knew and
intended that the tiny amount of bean essence that would be absorbed
into the meat would be batel, he was *not* "achsheveih". As I said, he
put the beans in the chamin for their own sake, not in order for them to
give a taam to the meat. (The meat is intended, in part, to give a taam
to the beans, but I've never heard of anyone intending that the beans
should give a taam to the meat.) That it would in fact be absorbed is a
"davar she'eino mitkaven", albeit a "pesik reisha" (to borrow terminology
from a completely different area of halacha). And so it should be batel.

Especially since kitniyot are batel berov, not beshishim, which means
(IMHO) that we're not concerned with the taam but with the "shem
kitniyot". If the mixture doesn't have "shem kitniyot" then the gezera
doesn't apply to it, and that principle would seem to apply here.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

Rich, R Joel wrote:
>> "The "conflict' or better "source of morality' in or outside halakha is
>> a peculiar preoccupation of R. Lichtenstein and some of his students"
>> It may originate in the Rav ZT"L with "halacha is a floor not a ceiling"...

> I've always thought there were a lot of semantics in this discussion
> but was wondering if anyone had seen any works by other than the above
> which dealt with this question in the context of lfnim mshurat hadin
> definitions?

Look at mefarashim on "qedoshim tihyu" (in particular the famous Ramban),
"ve'asisa hatov vehayashar" (similar idea, but bein adam lachaveiro)
and "vehalachta bidrachav" (the Rambam's maqor, as well as that in the
gemaros in the next paragraph). Not to mention the entire existence
of Hilchos Dei'os. Or to a CD search for "lifnim mishuras hadin" --
the expression is not a modern invention.

Frankly, I find the idea that halakhah is the end-all of human behavior
very hard to defend. See also BQ 99b, BM 30b, Tosafos ad loc (citing
Yuma 9b that the churban was due to a lack of lifnim mishuras hadin!),
and BM 83a.

In fact, I just came across an clear-cut example during a chavrusah
last night. The mishnah on BM 44a (also the gemara on 49a), we find it
explicitly say that backing out on some kinds of deals is muttar me'ikkar
hadin, but the person is mechusrei amanah and subject to a kelalah!

:-)BBii!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

[Micha:]
>Frankly, I find the idea that halakhah is the end-all of human behavior
>very hard to defend....
>In fact, I just came across an clear-cut example during a chavrusah
>last night. The mishnah on BM 44a (also the gemara on 49a), we find it
>explicitly say that backing out on some kinds of deals is muttar me'ikkar
>hadin, but the person is mechusrei amanah and subject to a kelalah!

The CI says a true Baal Bitachon will help his competitor who opens up down 
the block, even though al pi din he could take him to a Din Torah and force 
him to close down. Note that source - the same CI who comes down hard on 
the supra-halachic values of the Mussarists.

YGB

On Wed, 11 May 2005 "Rich, Joel" asked:
> IF the shatz is not fulfilling any chiyuv for those of us who can 
> daven, then why should we so stand; what exactly are we doing.
====================
Actually I was responding to this question-not asking it
===================

I have a personal minhag which I adopted based on RYBS shita (I heard from
two different talmidim that this was his shita). Whenever I daven for the
amud, I wait for the tzibur to finish modim d'rabanan and then say the
shatz's modim out loud.
===================
Actually R' Y Sacks said the shatz should say  the 1st 3 words in a very
loud voice (so as not to appear as not saying thanks) and then wait for the
tzibbur to finish)
==================

 I imagine that R' Yosha Ber's reasoning for this is because the chachamim
were misaken chazaras hashatz specifically for one who is not a baki and
thus, he (the eino baki) must hear every word, not be mafsik, stand with his
feet straight etc.

===================
See the mareh mkomot I sent- he held that this was to be yotzeh the tfilat
hatzibbur for the whole tzibbur(baki or not)
======================

Even if everyone was yotzei shmoneh esrei already, we still repeat chazaras
hashatz to be mikayem the takanas chachamim and thus, regarding the above
question, I simply see RYBS as attempting to uphold the takanas chachamim
(see Orach Chaim siman 124 sif 3 and 4) to the greatest extent possible,
that's all. IOW, just as RYBS would require the shliach tzibur to say modim
out loud so the tzura of the original takanas chachamim would be emulated
bishleimuso, so too, he would stand quietly, not be mafsik and even stand
straight as if he was being yotzei with the shatz. I think my explanation of
the RYBS shita makes sense but I am not a personal talmid so I might be
wrong.

Incidentally, the MB paskens that the shatz says his modim together with the
tzibur so anyone who doesn't follow RYBS shita has al mi lismoch.

Simcha Coffer

> Why does the Rambam in Hilhot Melahim cap 11, says the Rabbi Akiva
> 'imagined' (dima') that Bar Koziva is Mashiah?

REMT wrote:
>Does "dima" mean "imagined" to the Rambam? See, e.g., Hilchos Sh'gagos
>2:7: "Dima shezeh sheb'fiv rok hu, uv'la'o... vaharei hu cheilev..."
>There, it obviously means "it seemed to him" or "he thought," not that
>he imagined; and the same is the sense of the word in Hilchos M'lachim.

R. Avraham Yaakov Finkel has been translating selections from the Rambam
for the Scranton Yeshiva (best tzedakah mailing list to be on!), I think
based on the book Musrei HaRambam (he has done other rishonim before and
is now doing the Ramban Al HaTorah). In the book from three or four years
ago, he translates this passage (from Hilchos Melachim 11:4) as follows:

"He [R. Akiva] and all the Sages of his generation **considered him**
as the Messianic King, until he was killed because of his sins."

R. Eliyahu Touger also translates this way (
<http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/i-await-his-coming-every-day/02.htm>
).

Gil Student,          Yashar Books
Subscribe to "Sefer Ha-Hayim - Books for Life" Newsletter:
news, ideas, insights and special offers from Yashar Books
http://www.yasharbooks.com/Sub.html
mailto:Gil@YasharBooks.com

Further to my post erev shabbas where I wrote:
>Now in addition there is a concept under English law (and I am pretty
>.sure that it was a concept that American law took from English law) of
>"adverse possession".  That means that if somebody is in possession of
>property without protest for a certain period of time (set by statute
>these days, but at least in England less than 26 years), then that
>person becomes the legal owner of the land, and can apply to be legally
>recognised as such.

On thinking about this further s not this in fact precisely the case
quoted in relation to dina d'malchusa dina in Baba Basra 55a - except
that under Persian law, the period for adverse possession was 40 years
(See the Rashbam's explanation there). Why does not the case of the
neighbours fall squarely within this example.

Shavuah tov
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

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


[ 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         ]