Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 052

Sunday, July 17 2005

• Re: Hebrew gibberish on AVODAH post
• Re: [YGB] Daf Halachah - Shabbos 73b
• RE: Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• sociological factor
• Re: RAF letter
• Re: Kiruv in the Parashah
• sending email to Israel on friday afternoon
• Re: Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• RE: Rav Ashi and Lo Sassur
• Re: RAF letter
• Yeridas HaDoros
• Mime-Version: 1.0
• Re: The halachos of 'borrowing' wireless access
• Re: RAF letter
• Der Alter [Der Alter] 7/16/2005 11:32:00 PM
• 1st shiur on Ruth
• yeridas hadoros
• Re: yeridas hadoros
• Re: Starting Ruth
• [hirhurim] [Hirhurim - Musings] Strolling Down The Beach

BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
>Oy !

>Since for 99% of us, Hebrew comes out as absolute gibberish on email, could
>you let me know the mareh Mekomot of Rav Moshe on mesit is also bichtav?

>[Which is strange because the Mishna in Sanhedrin 7:10 (67a) explicitly
>repeats the word OMER a few times. Also I found nothing in the MInchat
>Chinuch (Parshat Re'eh) on MESIT also being bichtav,

I got it as gibberish too. If you go to:
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/07/interesting-question-continued.html>

you will see the Hebrew, with the appropriate passage highlighted. Reb
Moshe is saying it k'l'achar yad, but as a davar pashut.

I also cite a Taz al haTorah that notes that a meisit is chayav even if
he is po'el nothing - perhaps the issues are linked.

IgM YD 1:172
Taz Divrei David al haTorah Bereishis 3:13.

KT,
YGB

Micha Berger wrote:
>: /Tosafos Chaim/ suggests that it is only on Shabbos that one may not 
>: smell the fruit attached to the ground lest he come to pluck it. Even if 
>: Yom Kippur coincides with Shabbos he may not smell the fruit, as we are 
>: afraid that he may forget that it is also Yom Kippur, and come to pluck 
>: the fruit to eat it. However, when Yom Kippur falls on a weekday one is 
>: permitted to smell the fruit, for we assume he will remain aware of the 
>: prohibition to eat and not come to pluck the fruit.

>I was with you until the "he may forget that it is also Yom Kippur". I
>was figuring the lemaaseh the gezeirah was made WRT Shabbos and not YK
>or other Yom Tov.

>Otherwise, RSMashbaum's question seems to stand: Why would he remember
>about the issur achilah of YK when it's on a Wed, but not on a Shabbos?

I think it's pretty Baale-Battish. On a day which is kadosh from two
aspects, we are afraid he may remember the one aspect and not the other,
while on a day that is only kadosh from one aspect we are reasonably
sure that is what he will remember.

YGB

David Riceman (15:50) wrote:
<<< In H. Mamrim (1:2) [actually 2:1] the Rambam writes that the
prohibition of lo sassur applies to rulings of the "beis din hagadol
shebiyrushalem". In the hakdamah of the Mishneh Torah, however, he says
that we're obliged to follow all of the decrees enacted by the sages of
the Holy Babylonian Talmud, through Ravina and Rav Ashi, and he cites the
pasuk "lo sassur" as the source of the obligation. How did Ravina and Rav
Ashi's beis din aquire the status of "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem"?>>>

This whole problem is a central theme of the Haqdamah of the Dor Revi'i
to Hulin. v'ayein sham. In brief, the thesis of the Dor Revi'i was
that the psak of the Rambam in Mamrim 2:1 held in a situation in which
the Sanhedrin was in effect and the Oral Torah was not written down.
When Rabbeinu Haqadosh redacted the Mishnah and violated the issur
of creating an official text of the Oral Torah, he did so because the
position of the Sanhedrin (i.e., an authoratative decisor, aka poseik
aharon, of halakhah for klal yisrael, a role now ably and single-handedly
discharged by R. Elyashiv at a mere 1.5 percent of labor-cost of the
earlier institution) was felt no longer to be viable and that the only
alternative to such an institution was to create an official text of
the Oral Law that would be authoritative henceforth. A similar decision
was made by Ravina and Rav Ashi v'siyatam when the Talmud was redacted.
What this also did was to nullify the halakhah codified in Mamrim 2:1
which gave any Sanhedrin the right to nullify the previous decisions of
earlier Sanhedrins except gezeirot and taqanot (as the latter could only
be overturned by a subsequent Sanhedrin greater in wisdom and numbers
(Mamrim 2:2).

Thus, as a first approximation, we are stuck with the psaqim redacted in
the Mishnah and Talmud even if they are in some sense "wrong" just as we
would be stuck with a wrong decision of the Sanhedrin, aphilu im yomru al
y'min she'hu s'mol o al s'mol she'hu y'min. So much for the infallibility
of Hazal, an idea which obviously never occurred to Hazal. If only Hazal
had had R. Elyashiv and R. Feldman around to set them straight!

I now have an almost complete translation of the Haqdamah of the Dor
Revi'i to Hulin, which I hope to post soon on the Dor Revi'i website, and
is now especially relevant in view of the Slifkin/Elyashiv/Feldman dustup.
In the meantime I can send it to you offline if you are interested.
(It runs about 20k words in English, though only the first 2/3s is really
relevant to this topic.)

David Glasner

Wasn't the takana of Shimon ben Shetach (using the political of power
of the BT Cohen Gadol Yehoshua ben Gamla) to set up a mandatory school
system a result of a declining ability of parents to educate their kids
on their own? The heavy taxes on the people and military upheaval had
created this need, and halacha responded in kind.

Efraim Yawitz wrote:
>>>BTW, since Rav Herzog is well-known as one who held that we are not
>>>bound to the science of Hazal,

>>This is not true. Look at Heichel Yitzchok OH #29 concerning killing
>>germs and lice on Shabbos:

>This does not show that what I said "Rav Herzog is well-known ..." to
>be false, it only creates a contradiction in Rav Herzog's opinions.
>The famous statement of Rav Herzog (it is published in Assia somewhere
>as well as quoted by many who write on this subject) that we should not
>"hide our heads in the sand" about science was said against those who
>wished to use the idea from the Gemara about the "blood coming from the
>mother" to invalidate blood typing as a test of paternity. Thank you
>for the source, and evidently his opinion is not simple.

I agree that Rav Herzog is well known as not accepting chazal's science.
I was merely pointing out that such a characterization of Rav Herzog is
not true. The well known statment of Rav Hertzog was an unpublished letter
responding to the assertion of the Tzitz Eliezar that blood tests can
not establish paternity since chazal tell us that the blood is from the
mother. It appears that Rav Herzog did not view Chazal's statement about
origin of blood as a halachic statement and thus should not be taken
literally against scientific evidence. However the gemora concerning
lice was stated as a clear halacha. In such a case he apparently felt
that it is necessary to accept the science of chazal. Such a distinction
between halachic science and agadic science is made by others including
the Ramban.

Daniel Eidensohn

R' Gil Student wrote <<< R. Moshe Shternbuch, in his Tuv Ta'am Va-Da'as
(ad loc.), homiletically offers the following background story:
The Israelite men were attempting to reach out to the Midianites and
bring them to faith in the Jewish God. ... they embraced some of the
Midianite attitudes so as to be better able to influence the Midianites
and bring them to the true faith. ... This program of outreach was so
abominable that it led to the conclusion of the story -- the zealotrous
Pinehas killed the two sinners who had brought Midianite attitudes and
practices into the Jewish people. R. Shternbuch continues to apply this
to some outreach-oriented people in our day ... who, in our great sins,
accomodate foreign attitudes in order to reach out to others. He strongly
disapproves. >>>

Does Rav Shternbuch specify which sort of Midianite attitudes and
practices were brought into the Jewish people? If they were things which
cross the line of Chukos HaGoyim, then what is his point, given that
there are no kiruv groups which cross that line.

And if they were things which *aren't* Chukos HaGoyim, then with all
due respect to Rav Shternbuch, I think it is unfair to compare kiruv to
giyur. Surely there might be some accomodations which might be made for
kiruv situations, which would be considered "shaas hadchak" by definition,
I'd think, whereas there is no imperative to attract the Midianites. (Or
is there? What were we thinking, in his version of the story?)

Akiva Miller

Situation that just came up for me. I find a bug in a piece of software
our lab wrote that I'm using for research. Lab mate is not religious,
and is currently in Israel. As it's shabbos his time, can I send an
e-mail that he will probably see on shabbos, and might even work on to
try to fix.

Does it matter if I send it directly to him, or to a mailing list that
he'd see. (not sending it directly to him, anyone can fix it, but he's
the most likely to be able to?) Does it matter if the e-mail will be
sitting on a machine in the US? (I doubt it). Does it matter if I know
he's busy and wont get around to fixing this bug till after shabbos?
(But perhaps I don't want to wait, as I might forget to send it with
all relevant details neccessary for fixing it?)

From: "Glasner, David" <DGLASNER@ftc.gov>
<<In brief, the thesis of the Dor Revi'i was that the psak of the Rambam
in Mamrim 2:1 held in a situation in which the Sanhedrin was in effect
and the Oral Torah was not written down. When Rabbeinu Haqadosh redacted
the Mishnah and violated the issur of creating an official text of the
Oral Torah, he did so because the position of the Sanhedrin ... was
felt no longer to be viable and that the only alternative to such an
institution was to create an official text of the Oral Law that would be
authoritative henceforth. A similar decision was made by Ravina and Rav
Ashi v'siyatam when the Talmud was redacted. What this also did was to
nullify the halakhah codified in Mamrim 2:1 which gave any Sanhedrin the
right to nullify the previous decisions of earlier Sanhedrins except
gezeirot and taqanot (as the latter could only be overturned by a
subsequent Sanhedrin greater in wisdom and numbers (Mamrim 2:2). >>

This is, as Hyman Kaplan would say, a wonderful answer, but it doesn't
really address my question. My question is how could Ravina and Rav Ashi
and their Beis Din enact gezeiros for Jews outside of their jurisdiction
(e.g. Eretz Yisrael) since they clearly weren't the Sanhedrin. Only after
we clarify that can we ask how they could enact gezeiros for you and me.

<<I now have an almost complete translation of the Haqdamah of the Dor
Revi'i to Hulin, which I hope to post soon on the Dor Revi'i website, and
is now especially relevant in view of the Slifkin/Elyashiv/Feldman dustup.
In the meantime I can send it to you offline if you are interested.
(It runs about 20k words in English, though only the first 2/3s is really
relevant to this topic.)>>

Thanks, I'd like to see it.

David Riceman 

> In H. Mamrim (1:2) the Rambam writes that the prohibition of lo sassur
> applies to rulings of the "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem". In the
> hakdamah of the Mishneh Torah, however, he says that we're obliged to
> follow all of the decrees enacted by the sages of the Holy Babylonian
> Talmud, through Ravina and Rav Ashi, and he cites the pasuk "lo sassur"
> as the source of the obligation. How did Ravina and Rav Ashi's beis din
> aquire the status of "beis din hagadol shebiyrushalem"?

I think someone alse posted this before and it made its way into one of
my files.

The views of Rishonim on this subject have been summarized by Y. Stefansky
in Hattakanot B'Ysrael published by Mossad HaRav Kook. He demonstrates
that there are 4 basic positions.

1. This principle is limited to High Court only when they sit in their
proper chambers in the Temple (Rambam according to Margenita Tova,
Ramban for laws derived from 13 principle of interpretation, Yereim)

2. High Court even when not in the Temple (Rambam according to Lev
Someach, R. Tsvi Hirsh Chajehs, Ran, Rashba, R. Yonah, Ralbach)

3Until the days of Ravina and R. Ashi who closed the Talmud (Rambam as
Ramban and Chinuch understand him, Rashbatz, Mabit, Lechem Mishna)

4. Applies even today (Chinuch; according to R. Perlow in Sefer Hamitzvot
l'R. Saadia Gaon this a solitary view (ML: I gues it is not and the
Rambam as cited above also holds this)).

He also discusses various views regarding whether this verse applies to
Rabbinic enactments.

M. Levin

From: David Riceman [mailto:driceman@worldnet.att.net] 
This is, as Hyman Kaplan would say, a wonderful answer, but it doesn't
really address my question. My question is how could Ravina and Rav Ashi
and their Beis Din enact gezeiros for Jews outside of their jurisdiction
(e.g. Eretz Yisrael) since they clearly weren't the Sanhedrin. Only after
we clarify that can we ask how they could enact gezeiros for you and me.

When you read the Dor Revi'i's haqdamah, I think that you will have a
better handle on how they got the authority. Al regel ahat, I would say
that the authority was not the result of their personal stature but of
the nature of the document that they produced, a document that preserved
in writing the upshot of the oral torah and its underlying reasoning.
Rav Ashi did not impose it on us by gezeirah, he produced a document
that compelled our assent because it faithfully reproduced nearly the
entire corpus of rabbinic reasoning. The problem was that by so doing
they foreclosed further disagreement which was contrary to the principle
of el ha-shofeit asher yihiyeh ba-yamim ha-heim.

Efraim Yawitz (49:15) wrote:
<<< BTW, since Rav Herzog is well-known as one who held that we are not
bound to the science of Hazal, it is worth noting that Rav Elyashiv,
although perhaps not to be considered a talmid of Rav Herzog, was close
with him, and Rav Herzog got him his job as a dayyan for the Rabbanut.
My source for this information? Rav Aharon Feldman, former Rosh Yeshiva
of Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim Ir ha-Kodesh, who seems to have been
demoted to a position in chutz la-aretz. >>>

To which Daniel Eidensohn (Id.) replied:
<<< This is not true. Look at Heichel Yitzchok OH #29 concerning killing
germs and lice on Shabbos: "...We see that it is permitted to kill lice
on Shabbos since they do not reproduce sexually as we see in Shabbos
107b but rather they are produced by sweat. Thus they are not considered
creatures that are prohibited to kill...However modern science according
to my understanding does not acknowledge the validity of spontaneous
generation. We in contrast concerning halacha have only the words of
Chazal. Accordingly it is definitely permitted to kill germs on Shabbos
even if they are not harmful. Especially since even science admits that
they do not reproduce sexually in the normal manner. >>>

There is no contradiction. By "We in contrast concerning halacha have
only the words of Chazal," Rabbi Herzog, like the Dor Revi'I, only meant
that when Hazal actually paskened in the Talmud we cannot reverse their
psak if it later turns out that they were mistaken about a factual premise
underlying their psak because it is in the category of "aphilu yomru al
s'mol she-hu y'min or al y'min she-hu s'mol." In fact Rabbi Herzog's
formulation echoes what the Rambam says concerning t'reifot, namely, that
even if we should determine that Hazal were mistaken in their enumeration
of the treifot because we find that they left out some fatal defect or
included some defect that is not necessarily fatal, we still rely only on
what Hazal enumerated. Obviously the Rambam believed that Hazal could
make make mistakes in such matters and there is no basis for suggesting
that Rabbi Herzog of all people entertained a different opinion.

David Glasner

> What is "Yeridas HaDoros"? Can anyone define it? What were they greater
> in? Intelligence? Spirituality?

I really can't add to all the commentary regarding this question, but
I thought of something interesting. It is said that a doctor 50 miles
away from a community is considered better. Someone in our own town is
not great; it's always the one further away. This is just the opposite
of the concept of Yeridas HaDoros. Those further away from the Source
are considered to be less spiritual, wise, intelligent or whatever.

So I think we're dealing with the concept of time versus space.
In Judaism, we can sanctify both time and space, so it would seem that
as long as that sanctity remains, there should be no dichotomy between
the two. However, it is like the "good old days." We always glorify
the past. In reality, the real glory lies in the future. So eventually
the concept of "Yerida HaDoros" will reverse itself.

<Answers that don't change the order of creation are found in Moreh
Nevuchim (the sphere turned completely every 24 hours even before the sun
was created) and Malbim (there were 24-hour cycles of light and darkness
before the sun was created). Both maintain their positions while also
holding that everything was actually created in latent form at the first
moment of Creation. >

The problem that I have is that the 24 hour day we have today is because
of the rotation of the earth and has absolutely nothing to do with the
properties of the sun. We have darkness only because we are on the
other side of the earth from the sun.
As such I don't understand the Malbim at all.

besides both shitot cited above seem to assume that the earth existed
before the sun which does not correspond to modern theories.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel
-- 
Eli Turkel

[Let's not get too far away on the subjects of metzi'us. -mi]

Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
> A more relevant example, BTW - let us say you have an appoinment in a
> building which has a wireless network - while you are waiting, can you
> use the network, just as you might read the magazines or use the restroom?

According to my personal favorite reference for information on the
legality of this or that in cyberspace:

"The Act [the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act - my addition]
makes it unlawful for any person to access a protected computer
"without authorization." That same section also forbids a person who
has a legitimate and authorized right of access from "exceeding the
authorized access." If such an access "without authorization" or "in
excess of authorization" results in the person's obtaining information
from the protected computer, and the conduct involves interstate or
foreign communication, then a violation of the Act is established."

"As used in the Act, a "protected computer" includes any computer "which
is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication."

The full text of this article can be viewed at:
<http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/burke-2001-01-all.html>

While I doubt that a login of the nature described in the example would
even be noticed on a network that is open to the point where anyone can
login, as I understand the applicable laws such a login would be legally
considered unauthorized under US Federal law.

Brent

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, kennethgmiller wrote:
> Not a good example. It admits that this particular detail of biology was
> not received as part of Revelation. Big deal. No one ever claimed that ALL
> of biology was included in Revelation, only that some particular details
> were included, such as certain injuries which cause an animal to be a
> treifah, or whether lice may be killed on Shabbos. If modern science
> has different views on treifos or lice, there are many approaches to
> resolving that conflict, such as any of the understandings of Nishtaneh
> HaTeva, as Rav Feldman explained.

This is exactly the same issue which I just replied to RHM about.
I tried to give the proponents of infallibility some kind of benefit of
the doubt that their shita is minimally coherent, and therefore I assumed
that they are claiming a general competence in science for Hazal rather
than just knowledge of some random disconnected facts. The lice issue
is another good example of what I wrote to RHM about a fact which is not
intrinsically part of halacha. No definition of a melacha depends on how
lice reproduce; this is merely a piece of information which can have a
'nafka minah' once the halachic concepts are determined. I can't see
why Hazal should have had Ruach Hakodesh for this piece of information
rather than, say, for knowledge of how a refrigerator works or any of
thousands of other details about things which impinge on Hilchos Shabbos.
The truth is that there is hardly any bit of knowledge about the world
which doesn't make a difference in Hilchos Shabbos or Dinei Mamonos.
If we really are defining the belief in infallibility of Hazal as merely
the idea that they had access to a collection of interesting facts,
then we are wasting time kicking a very very dead horse.

Ephraim

Moshe wrote his book and the portion of Balaam. He also wrote the book
of Job ( Bava Basra 14b-15a)

Moshe wrote the Pentateuch and went back and wrote the book of Balaam
(Yerushalmi Sota (5,6).

Why must we be specifically told that Moshe wrote the portion of Balaam;
is it not a part of the Chumash and already included in the phrase
"Moshe wrote his book"?

A number of answers to this perplexing question have been offered and
can be found at <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash/5765/Balak.htm>. What
follows is a mussar take on the question.

One wonders whether there may not be moral lesson in this Talmudic
passage. We know from other Midrashic sources that Balaam was a great
prophet, one in fact as great or even potentially greater than Moshe.
Yet, he misused his gift of prophecy and brought himself and his students
to ruin.

Bilaam was intimate with his mule (A"Z 4b). He was a man who was barren
and whose partner in life was the very symbol of barrenness. Although
Balaam failed to fulfill his potential, a little bit of the good that
he could have done was redeemed and captured by Moshe. Each one of us
is meant to write a book with his life, a book in which he is the main
character. If we are fortunate it is the book that God means us to write.

Balaam did not fulfill the purpose for which his soul descended into
this world. A portion of the book that Balaam was meant to write was
instead salvaged by Moshe and written in his book.

Every man can learn from the story of the immensely gifted man who
has gone to ruin. Moshe wrote the story of Balaam in his book so that
it may serve as a warning and an example, so that we may know the
awesome responsibility that comes with G-d given gifts and the terrible
consequences of misusing them in the service of the self. Hashem's plans
always come to fruition; if we refuse to comply with them, His book will
still be written but by others and not by us.

 - Posted by M. Levin to Der Alter at 7/16/2005 11:32:00 PM

From: torah.org/learning/ruth
Ruth:  kindness and ruthlessness.

When Lot, Abraham's nephew and his faithful companion in Canaan and
Egypt, chose to abandon the family of Abraham he left a void that was
not filled in for many generations. Abraham was childless and Lot was to
be the inheritor. What would his position have been, if he had remained
with Abraham? We do not know but likely there would have still been an
important role for him to play even after Abraham was miraculously granted
children. Surely Hashem would have retained a place of greatness for Lot,
the devoted associate, in His plan.

Unfortunately, this is not how the things turned out. Lot rejected the
Abrahamitic covenant and chose for himself the verdant valleys of wicked
Sodom. His seed became two great temporal powers of Moab and Ammon,
outside of and antagonistic to G-d's people and G-d's plan.

Yet, Hashem never despairs and his thoughts are beyond human reckoning. As
the angels were rushing Lot out of Sodom, they said: "Arise, take your
wife and two daughters who are found, lest you be caught in the sin of
the city (Genesis 19,15)". On this the Sages comment: " Two daughters -
this is Ruth, the Moabite and Na'amah, the Amonite (who married Solomon,
King of Israel, Kings 1:14, 21)". Similarly they say in a statement that
is surely profound, though open to many interpretations, " I found My
servant David (Psalms 89)" - in Sodom (Genesis Rabbah 50, 15)".

This is what Shem Mishmuel (Shevuos 670, for more on him see
<http://www.torah.org/advanced/shem-meshmuel>) writes about this. " Royalty
was not to be found in Israel and had to be imported from Moabג€¦for the
shell of Moab is arrogance (that hides within it true royalty of spirit
and aristocracy of behavior), as it says, "We heard the pride of Moab,
he is exceedingly highג€¦(Isaia 16,6). This is why the soul of David
was caught in captivity within the shell of Moab so as to be able to
liberate Royalty from the trappings of arrogance and pride and to join
it to the holiness of "authority over others for the sake of heaven."

This suggestion follows kabbalistic worldview that sees history as the
process of drawing good out of evil in which it is imprisoned, so that
it can join the good that already stands apart and opposes evil. In our
world, the good is often intermixed confusingly with bad and it is the
task of man to liberate and redeem the good and the holy.

There is another aspect that Moab could contribute to Kingship in
Israel. Lot took with him some of the kindness and graciousness
of Abraham's house into Sodom. At the same time, he applied it in a
deranged and confused manner. He risked his life to protect his guests
from the predations of the Sodomites but was willing to deliver his own
daughters to their hedonistic designs. His descendents, on the other
hand, displayed heartless insensitivity to their cousins passing near
their land in their hour of need.

An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem;
even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly
of HaShem for ever; because they met you not with bread and with water in
the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against
thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee
(Deuteronomy 23:4,5).

It is difficult for a king to apply mercy and severity in proper
measure. A policy that benefits one group or population invariably hurts
or takes away from another. What one subject considers good is injurious
or harmful in the eyes of another.

Saul, the first king of Israel, failed on both of these scores - excessive
humility, inappropriate for a king, and misapplied kindness. "Why was
he punished? Because he forgave an insult to his honorג€¦(Maharsha, Yoma
22b)". His "hiding between the vessels" almost led Israel to destruction
(Samuel I, 10). He was merciful to his enemies and merciless to his
friends. He spared Agag, the king of Amalek but persecuted his loyal
servant David. This inability to combine exercise of power and of
kindness, of Justice and Mercy, was his downfall. "He who is merciful
when he should be pitiless will end up being cruel when he should be
merciful, and falls by the sword (Ecclesiaticus Rabbah 7, 36)".

David's challenges were likewise twofold - to bring aristocratic bearing
of Moab into Jewish monarchy and use kingly kindness that he inherited
from Ruth in balance with ruthlessness as it is needed. When he failed
to keep proper balance between the two, he was punished severely (see
Shabbos 56a). That he ultimately succeeded is in great measure in the
merit of his illustrious ancestor, Ruth, the Moabite.

M. Levin

> 2. They were not metaphysically greater but it is just that subsequent
> generations persecutions and exiles made it impossible for anyone to
> learna s much from their teachers as eartlier generation. 

If this opinion were actually true it would mean that we, today, may
disagree with anyone from a previous generation without a second thought
because we are certainly free from the persecutions that they faced and
our lifestyles make it easier to learn Torah.

[Email #2. -mi]

> The gemara quite clearly and frequently assumes that an amora can't
> argue with the maskana of tannaim.

The Gra held differently than many people are taught nowadays. I have
been taught that the Amora'im went to great lengths in order to not
disagreee with Tanna'im, so much so that a large percentage of the
Gemara is about taking the time and energy to reconcile opinions so that
they do not disagree with Tanna'im. And thus the terms "Hachi k'amar"
(this is really what the Tanna said) and "chasorei mechsora" (the Tannaic
statement wasn't complete) attempt to reconcile what the Ammora'im thought
and what the Tanna'im actually said, all for the purpose of making the
Ammora'im and Tanna'im live together in peace.

The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

brent

On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 12:09:09AM -0500, brent wrote:
: The Gra held differently than many people are taught nowadays. I have
: been taught that the Amora'im went to great lengths in order to not
: disagreee with Tanna'im, so much so that a large percentage of the
: Gemara is about taking the time and energy to reconcile opinions so that
: they do not disagree with Tanna'im...

But even more than that, doesn't the question "tana'i hi" imply that
no amora would ever disagree with tannaim? Otherwise, why would someone
consider a statement that is the duplicate of that of tannaim to be
redundant -- it would simply be an assertion that they do not take the
opportunity to disagree!

: The Gra held that those terms ("Hachi k'amar" and "chasorei mechsora")
: weren't saying that the Tanna actually said something else or that there
: is an intrinsic lacking in the text but rather that the Amora was in
: fact disagreeing with the Tanna and rewriting the Tanna's statement to
: conform with the current understanding of the new opinion.

Maqor? Extraordinary claims need greater proof.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

In Avodah V15 #51, RML wrote:
> Another lesson that this book teaches us - redemption requires
> separation.

Another example of which might be Boaz's threshing floor (separating wheat
from chaff) and Ruth's presence after the threshing was complete.

All the best from
 -Michael Poppers via RIM pager

A responsum from R. Shlomo Aviner, originally printed in the 1985
edition of R. Shmuel Katz's Kedoshim Tihyu, p. 236 and reprinted in R.
Shlomo Aviner, Gan Na'ul, p. 265:

    Question: May girls dressed according to halakhah attend a mixed
    beach?

    Answer: Apparently, there is no prohibition in the girls' actual
    attendance, as in the previous question; however, it might be that
    we must prohibit it because of mar'is ayin [appearing to sin],
    similar to what is written in the Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 11b), that
    it is prohibited to travel on a path that is dedicated to travel to
    a specific city in which there is an idolatrous celebration. In our
    situation, also, there is mar'is ayin on those girls, i.e. [people
    thinking] that they are going to participate in mixed swimming.
    However, if there is a practice like this, that many women walk to
    a mixed beach and remain there dressed, it is possible to say that
    th! ere is no mar'is ayin (R. Moshe Feinstein wrote similarly on a
    different topic in Iggeros Moshe, Orah Hayim vol. 3 no. 25).
    However, it seems to me that there is no such practice. Perhaps,
    if a woman walks with a young child there is no mar'is ayin because
    people will assume that she is just bringing the child. However,
    regarding young women, there is certainly mar'is ayin.
    However, since this is a new question to me, and I did not see anyone
    else discussing it, I can only tell to where my opinion leans.

--
Posted by Gil Student to Hirhurim - Musings at 7/17/2005 09:49:00 PM

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


[ 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         ]