Avodah Mailing List

Volume 15 : Number 074

Tuesday, August 30 2005

• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: Rambam and Kollel
• Re: kriah bishas yitziyas n'shama
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• Re: yeush on land
• Re: Hashkofic questions - Where to Religious Zionism
• R Zechariah b Avkolus
• Re: Hekesh
• Hekesh
• Re: Calling A Spade A Spade: Rambam and Kollel
• Bava Basra 27b
• Re: Misheberach leyoledes
• hekesh
• Midrash R'eh, Reward and punishment
• Midrash, Vaeschanan -- Torah and Derech Eretz
• Re: Midrash, Vaeschanan -- Torah and Derech Eretz
• Re: hekesh
• Re: hekesh

Wed, 10 Aug 2005 "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu> wrote:
> The rambam recommended ... that it is preferable to work
> full time with no study rather than to take charity.

WADR, I think this is most incorrect. The Rambam teaches teaches
that "Every Jewish man is obligated in talmud Torah, whether poor or
rich...Even if one were a pauper who made his parnassa through charity
going door-to-door... one is obligated to schedule for himself time for
talmud Torah at night and at day, as it is said, 'And you shall engross
yourself in it day and night'" (Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:8).

Zvi Lampel 

RRW
>Accodring to this line of thinking why did the Torah FORCE Israel to
>support Kohanim why no have THEM do the Avoda lishma, too?

>Did Financially supporting Kohanim somehow Cotnribute to the descturction
>of the Temple?
>is that why supoorting kohanim was a bad idea and should not be perpetuated?

The analogy between kohanim and leviim, whose support is mandated,
and between talmide chachamim, whose support is forbidden (according to
the rambam), is an old one, and people even try to find a makor for it
in the rambam (end of hilkhot shmitta veyovel) - but the rambam quite
clearly sees a difference - because he allows one and forbids the other.

What the difference is can be argued (several clear differences come to
mind - kohanim and leviim's avoda is something that the community can
not do, and kohanim and leviim were also eliminated from the land, while
talmide chachamim's avoda is something that is incumbent and available
for the entire community, and there is no intrinsic reason they can'
t participate in the general economy. FUrthermore, their claiming
of support is a statement of their personal worthiniess of support,
rather than that of the torah designating them as worthy) - but that the
difference exists is clear - and was generally accepted by the community
(not just the rambam). Being a kohen wasn't a profession one chose.
being a talmid chacham was a goal for the entire community - but was
transformed into being a profession - with the choice between torah and
.... - therefore equating torah study with professions.

WRT to RRW second point - that the issue is the master student
relationship, and payment disrupts that relationship - that may well
be true, however, the rambam (and not just the rambam - see eg mahzor
vitri on pirke avot for early ashkenaz approach) views all payments by
the community to scholars as being problematic - not just payments by
their students.

Meir Shinnar

The Nishmat Avraham (Yoreh Deah 340 # 2) is lenient and quotes what the
Tzitz Elizer wrote him (XIII 35 s"k 4) "u'bihyot she'kyadua l'maaseh
lo kor'im klal, loha'rofim ha'datiim ha'omdim b'shaat yetziat neshama,
lo anshei chevra kadisha velo she'ar kol adam, u'minayin haheter l'kach?
Lachen k'dai l'haatik lzeh divrei sefer shulchan gavoha al Yoreh Deah
340 s"k 15 shematzinu bidvarav neicha al kach." He then indicates that in
this case no one would attend to the goses. "v'chen nahagu b'ir hakodesh
yerushalayim .. d'ein korin mitaam zeh." Incidentally he then brings
another snif l'hakel; the doctor's white coat belongs to the hospital
and tearing it "d'ein daat hatzibur she'yuchlu l'koram".

Indeed, if I had to tear kriya every time I was present at yetziyat
neshama, I wouldn't have any shirt to wear, even the cheap $6 ones I
buy :-)

Josh

In a message dated 8/28/2005 10:24:36pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Can some of our erudite chaverim give me
> instances of siddurim where the order of berachos matches the order of
> kiyum, 

Nusach Chabad.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

The newish Eshkol siddur "Mekor Habrocho" which I have at work (after
salvaging it from sheimos), has the Misheberach in chronological order
on pg 105 and again on pg 297.

(Not the Eshkol is an authority on nussach; each of their siddurim have
subtle variations in nussach, and some of their siddurim have variations
in nussach depending on the page you're on. This may be an e.g: This
version adds "(Brachamov)" to the last line of every Kaddish dRabonon -
but not to any other Kaddish.)

 - Danny

Danny Schoemann <doniels@gmail.com> wrote:
> The newish Eshkol siddur "Mekor Habrocho" which I have at work (after
> salvaging it from sheimos), has the Misheberach in chronological order
> on pg 105 and again on pg 297

Perhaps I could have been clearer; the responses refer to modern
siddurim; I'm looking for an older source that would contradict the
assertion that it's always been said this way.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> I am not sure about Yeush but war certainly changes the status of land.

AIUI, kibbush milchama doesn't apply to Eretz Yisrael, just as the normal
rules of kinyan didn't apply when the Shevatim took possession, because
it Hashem's gift.

> Even in EY the first kedusha of Yehoshua was through war and so the
> land lost its kedusha through war.

What has Kedushat Haaretz got to do with ownership?

> It is clear that if one could prove that his family owned a certain plot
> of land in bayit sheni that he could not come today, al pi halachah,
> and claim the land for himself based on karka eno nizleget.

On the contrary, it is clear to me that he could.  At least until
someone could prove that he is the yoresh of the owners from bayit
rishon.

> I vaguely remember there was a case like that when Jerusalem was
> reconquered and the psak was that land owned in 1948 was irrevelant
> because it was under Jordanian rule in between.

I don't believe this story; even the Israel secular courts recognised
Jewish land titles from before '48, and restored ownership to the title
holders.  (Sometimes it took years of litigation because the Arab
squatters claimed to have bought the land; in other cases, the squatters
were given the status of protected tenants, and the owners have to buy
them out or wait for them to die, but there is no question on the
ownership.)

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> Rav Meidan thinks that the partners will be Chareidi Jews and that the
> religious zionists made a historic mistake when they allied themselves
> with the secular. This will require national religious to consider
> hardening their position on a number of Halachic issues on which they
> are currently liberal. 

> Rav Lichtenstein thinks that the alliance can be
> restored by farther ideologic compromise and that we must continue to
> carry out national policy under the old paradigm of state = Melech.

> Rav Schapira thinks that the religious zionists must resist immoral policies,
> do not need anyone and can change Israeli State by Civil Disobedience
> and by coalescing remnants of secular zionists around them. I think that
> the religious zionists have to do a lot of spiritual work to redefine
> who they are and what is really important to them. What I see is that
> the inherent tension between national and religious is beginning to tear
> the national religious apart as one defined movement.

I think all three approaches are taking place. As is the case in
virtually all segments of Israeli religious society, whenever there is
a distinction to made, it evolves into a movement. How many offshoots
are there already that srpung from the originally unified Religious
Zionism? Did Meimad really have to splinter off? And amongst Charedim,
do we really need two Charedi parties Degel HaTorah and Agudat Yisrael?

Rav Schapira's views are merely an extension of the messianist views of
the past and I personally do not see this being the primary path taken
by the majority of RZs. Only the diehards will follow this path and
there will likely be fewer and fewer of them as time goes on, IMHO.

Rav Meidan's is a more likely scenario and could easily attract Chardalim
who are virtually already there.

I see another approach developing along with the above. The DL turned
less RZ and more MO/Centrist. Instead of Chardal where Rav Meidan
sees everyone going, I see a kind of transformation of some off those
people into a more MO/Centrist with a large proportion of American Olim
as its base. There will have less emphasis on Religious Zionism and
there will be more attention paid to the non RZ principles and ideals
of TuM. The closest of the above that fits into this paradigm is RAL but
it would not be the same as his because it would not see an equivalence
of State and Melech. The State will be looked upon as little more than
a secular government in a holy land, where laws have to be followed. In
other words the disillusionment with messianist Zionism will generate
a paradigm based somewhat more on the American model of separation of
church and state. This new group will be loyal to the State, serve in
its army participate in its political and social system but will not see
the Medinah in any hard core religious way. Rather the MO/Centrist will
become patriots of the State of Israel but their main focus it seems to
me will be to reconstruct a society in ways that are not dependant on
RZ principles at all except in a very generalized way similar to Charedim.

I don't know which of the above will become the dominate Mehalech or
even if any of them will ever come to full fruition. But my guess is
that they all will to one degree to another along with other possible
incarnations that no one can foresee.

HM

> R Zechariah b Avkolus was, in fact, the greatest member of Sanhedrin at
> the time. When the case of Bar Kamtza came before the Sanhedrin he should
> have given his opinion last, in accordance with "poschin min hatzad."
> However, Rav Zecharia b Avkolus was a great "onov"...

At the time of the Churban there was R. Yochanan ben Zakai and R.
Shimon ben gamliel I.
How can one say that R Zechariah b Avkolus was the greatest. He is not
well known outside of this story.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 8/28/2005 10:24:26pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Rashi says in Sukka that of the 13 midos shehaTorah nidreshes bahen,
> only kal vachomer is "do-it-yourself", not hekesh.
> Which mida of the 13 is hekesh?

See "Kitzur Kllolim Mshlosh Esrei Midos Shehatorah Nidreshes Bohem"
(printed in the back of Brochos) Midah 2 Gzeira Shava, see also Hagohas
Ben Aryei there # 5 WRT this Rashi. see also Gilyon Hashas.

Much discussed in Sifrei haKlolim, see ET erech Hekash.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

> Which mida  of the 13 is hekesh?

It is Binyan Av mikasuv echad and binyan av mishnei kesuvim (Halichos
Olam, binyan av). However, others say that hekesh, a limud from one verse
to one verse is called me motshinu and is not one of the 13 middos of
R. Ishmael at all (Rash MiKinon, Sefer Krisus, Batei Middos, 3,2). Rash
Mikinon explains that binyan Av always involves two sources that jointly
create a halacha with a third source - this is why it is called binyan
av, like two stones on bottom and one on the top. He says explicitly
that hekesh is a sevara, not a limud or a middah- it is as if it is
written explicitly. According to him, hekesh trumps gezerah shava for
it is considered explicit; other rishonim disagree. So Rashi seems to
hold like the first view; leshitoso, he also understands the klal of
duk mino as applying to both gserah shava and hekesh (Zevachim 91b).
Other rishonim dispute this Rashil they apparently hold like the Rash
Mikinon.

The are also rishnim that hold that the principle of ein adam dan applies
to all 13 middos, except kal vchomer. Does anyone remember who holds
like that; I cannot currently recall.

M. Levin

From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> I would be interested in seeing a source for this claim that the
> Rambam's brother's support was dependent upon capital that the Rambam
> supplied.

See Igroth HaRambam, ed. Sheilat, p. 229 (the letter to R. Yefeth).

David Riceman

The Mishna on 27b: R Shimon disagrees with the Tanna Kamma and says that
any tree whose branches extend over the public domain may be cut b/c
of tumah. The halacha apparently is not like R Shimon, but the Gemara
never actually rejects R Shimon's opinion.

So: why _is_ R Shimon's opinion not the halacha?

 - Sholom

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:20:36PM +0000, Gershon Dubin wrote:
: This morning the gabbai made a misheberach leyoledes zachar. The nusach
: that he read from the siddur wished the parents to be megadlo leTorah
: lechupah ulmaasim tovim, ulhachniso bivriso shel A"A bizmano.

I once saw a nussach in a chassidishe siddur (Boston?) that I fell
in love with and retained, decades after I forgot the context. People
might recognize bits of the ammendments from well-wishes I've sent on
Areivim. (Although I tend to send them in personal email.)

    lahachniso bevriso shel A"A be'ito uvizmano,
    ulegadlo leTorah lechupah ulmaasim tovim
    vela'alos ito laregel

The last line adds a nice touch of tzipiyah liyshua'. Perhaps true
tzipiyah would be to place it before the baby's bar mitzvah, as the
second line -- since (to be on subject) the other four elements are in
age order. But then, the ammender would have been interupting rather
than appending to the matbei'ah. Or maybe it's like ma'asim tovim --
one isn't "really" an oleh regel until one can buy his own olas re'iyah,
which presumably is after the shiduch.

I also like be'ito uvizmano, as RAKotler has a beautiful vort on the
difference. Beqitzur to the point of omitting the beauty: eis = a
point in the time sequence of a process. (RSRH would probably relate
"eis" to "ad".) Be'ito, when the baby is ready. Zeman = a point in
time according to a scedule. In this case, the morning of day 8 (or
day 9 when a safeiq Shabbos situation arises). I wrote a vort for MmD
on eis, zeman, qeitz, yamim, shanim, and Jewish time in general at
<http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mikeitz.pdf>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      		      -Rita Mae Brown

Gershon Dubin asked: 
> Rashi says in Sukka that of the 13 midos shehaTorah nidreshes bahen,
> only kal vachomer is "do-it-yourself", not hekesh. Which mida of the 13
> is hekesh?

Hekesh belongs to the midah of gezerah shava.
In a hekesh, however, the two subjects to be compared (makkish) are
found in one and the same possuk.

See tosafos on Sukkah 31a (d'h v''ry savar lo makshinon). 

Hekesh does not figure explicitly in R. Yishmael's 13 midos. 

Rashbatz states that something learned from a hekesh is an essential
part of Torah (Guf Torah) as if it was written in the Torah itself,
and therefor hekesh is preferable (adif) to a gezerah shavah.
That is why this midah is not mentioned by R. Yishmael in his 13 midos
shehaTorah nidreshes bahem -- because it is a Guf Torah.

see Sefer Kerisos (edn: Jerusalem, 5743 page 41, note 40 )

Kol Tuv
Yitschak Maser
Montpellier,France

[Forwarded from Midrash and Method <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash>
because it deals with our recurring topic of universal vs
limited HP. -mi]

Reward and punishment: Automatic or Personal.

Jewish thought contains a variety of positions on almost every theological
issue of importance. We often find a particular position or debate
expressed in a medieval work or even by a fairly recent thinker and we,
therefore, tend to think that the author is the originator of the idea
or concept. As we had seen many times in this series, careful reading
of midrash often leads us to the discovery of such a position already
in the words of Tannaim. Undoubtedly, some such interpretations are
forced; each one deserves to be judged solely on its merits and on how
well it explicates the passage under consideration. However, and this
goes beyond apologetics to methodology, an encounter with a "difficult"
midrash should stimulate an erudite reader to search for a theological
issue that may explain the "difficulty". Directed by midrash itself,
Scriptural antecedents of the view or contending views may then be
discovered, confirming the essential unity of all Torah.

Let us look at one such problem -- does God cause suffering? The problem
of theodicy is, of course, one of central religious issues and one that
notoriously lacks a definitive solution. It is obviously desirable to
remove God from being the direct cause of human pain; on the other hand,
God who does not directly and personally punish evil and rewards good,
appears far too distant and irrelevant. It is difficult to worship or
pray to such a Deity. There seem to be an irresolvable conundrum and
dilemma and there is no satisfactory resolution -- either God punishes
directly for sin and He is therefore responsible for human pain, or,
if reward and punishment are merely natural consequences of obedience
and disobedience, He is hardly involved in out lives and not much of a
personal God. Much ink has been spilled on trying to resolve and bring
closer these two polarities but that is not our focus here.

Much of Jewish liturgy takes the first view. Philosophy and Kabbalah
tends to the second. This is how it is stated by R. Chaim Shmulevits in
Sichos Mussar: "...we must view the punishment meted out for interpersonal
offenses in a different manner. It is not retribution in the sense of
reward and punishment, rather it is part and parcel of the reality our
existence. As surely as one must be hurt by a collision with another
object, so too must one be hurt when one has hurt another's feelings. When
one puts his hand into a fire it will be burned, countless good reasons
for doing so notwithstanding".

The Midrash Deteronomy Rabbah 4,1 reports the following view of R. Elazar
on this issue.

    Another interpretation: Hear and listen and do not rise up (Yirmiah
    14). R. Elazar said: The Book and the sword came down wrapped
    together from heaven. He said to them: If you do what is written
    in this book, you are saved from this sword. If you do not do it,
    you will be killed by the sword...

    Hear, I set before you today blessing and curse... R. Elazar said:
    Once HKBH said this at Sinai, at that time -- "from the mouth of
    the High One will not go forth evils and good (Lament. 3). But,
    evil comes of its own to those who do evil and good comes of its
    own to those who do good.."

Thus, reward and punishment are on autopilot. One who does evil
automatically suffers the effect of his actions and one who does good
is automatically rewarded. This is a spiritual law that Hashem has
set up in the world; what's more, He has notified and warned us of its
existence. He who chooses to disregard this law is responsible for the
outcome and Hashem is blameless for the result.

    R. Chagi said: Not only did I set before you two paths but went
    beyond the call of duty and told you, "You shall choose life".

The issue is aslo discussed in the Sifri ad loc. The passage is
obscure. Bringing this theological issue into explicating it provides
us with an approach that makes it much more intelligible.

    Blessing and Curse. Blessing that you listen and curse if you do
    not listen...A similar instance, " If you do well, accrue good and
    if not, accrue bad (Genesis 4).

Explanation; Do not be misled by the wording to think that obedience
is its own reward and blessing; rather, sin leads directly to being
punished by G-d as Cain was in the proof-text, and doing good leads to
direct reward as stated there.

    R. Eliezer the son of R. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such
    a suggestion? The Torah said: "The blessing it you listen and the
    curse if you don't listen". A similar instance, "Life and death are
    in the power of tongue and he who loves it eats its fruit (Proverbs
    18). He who loves (good) speech eats its fruits; one who loves evil
    eats its fruits.

    R. Eliezer the son of R. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such
    a suggestion?

    Torah said: Watch you tongue from evil (Psalms 34) A similar instance
    -- "For the righteous will be rewarded( passive form -- ishulam)
    in the land (Proverbs 11)."

These two versions of R. Eliezer advocate the "automatic" theory of
reward and punishment and bring proof-texts to support them. R. Yosi,
the brother of R. Eleizer disagrees. According to R. Yosi, reward and
punishment are direct interventions by the Divine.

    R. Yosi, the son of R,. Yosi Haglili says: Who would whisper such
    a suggestion? The Torah says, " All that G-d does is by Himself
    (lmaaneihu) and also the evil one ( is punished) on the day of evil
    (Ibid 77).".

I offer this passage as an example of how one can use basic theological
issues that are discussed in later Rabbinic literature as tools with
which to approach obscure Tannaitic midrash. I do not claim that
this particular interpretation is the only possible one or that it is
correct. I also admit that application of this technique is subjective
and as all chidush in Torah can lead to good and persuasive results or
to strained und unappealing interpretations. What I do wish to express
is a methodological point that, if utilized carefully and correctly,
can open the gates of interpretation a little bit wider and can aid
a student of midrash toward better understanding and a more rewarding
encounter with obscure midrashic passages.

[Forwarded from Midrash and Method <http://www.aishdas.org/midrash>
because I had what to comment on it, and it deals with TIDE and TuM
issues. -mi]

Torah and Derech Eretz.

Torah study is unquestionably a pillar of Judaism. Its relations to
earning a living is, as is well known, subject of a disagreement between
Tannaim. The following passage is found in Sifri Vaeschanan but I first
quote in the version found in the Talmud

    "Why does the Torah tell us, "And You shall gather your
    grain?". Because another verse says, "This scroll of the Torah
    shall not depart from you mouth and you shall meditate in it day
    and night". We might understand it literally; therefore note that
    "You shall also gather your grain" -- combine Torah study with the
    way of the world. These are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Shimon Bar
    Yochai says, "If a person plows at the time of plowing, sows at the
    time of sowing, winnows when it blows, what will become of Torah
    However, when Jews do the will of Hashem, their work is done by
    others...when they do not do the will of Hashem, they not only do not
    accomplish their own work but do the work of others. ". Abbaye says,
    "Many have followed the words of R. Shimon Bar Yochai and did not
    succeed". Rava said to the scholars: ": Do not come to the academy
    at harvest and gathering time lest you become impoverished and will
    have to engage in making a living the rest of the year (Brochos 35b).

R. Ishmael recommends combining Torah study and work while R. Shimon
Bar Yochai urges Torah study to the exclusion of other pursuits .

Surprisingly, other sources ascribe diametrically opposite opinions to
these two Tannaim.

    Ben Dama, the nephew of R. Ishamel asked him, "A person like me who
    has learned the entire Torah -- can I go and study the wisdom of
    the Greeks"". He replied: "Go and find time which is neither day
    nor night and study Greek wisdom then" (Menachos 99b)

    "This scroll of the Torah shall not depart from you mouth and you
    shall meditate upon it day and night". R. Yochanan said in the Name
    of R. Shimon Bar Yochai, "Even if one reads the Shema morning and
    evening he has fulfilled this verse... (Ibid).

This contradictions, as you may expect, did not escape the notice of
Torah scholars throughout the ages and many reconciliations have been
proposed . Consideration of the version preserved in the Sifri suggests
a novel but sensible and reasonable explanation. It appears from the
Sifri R. Ishmael is speaking only to the permission, not obligation
to engage in earning a living. It stands to reason that he may rule
differently about someone who already has means of support. Certainly
studying Greek wisdom is unlikely to increase his nephew’s earning power
and should not be permitted. R. Shimon Bar Yochai, similarly, speaks of
a utopian situation, when other nations materially support the Jews so
they can freely study Torah. He will not necessarily apply it to the time
in which he lived when such was not the case. I cite the relevant passage:

    Why does the Torah tell us, "And You shall gather your
    grain?". Because it says, "This scroll of the Torah shall not depart
    from you mouth and you shall meditate in it day and night". We
    might understand it literally; therefore understand that "You shall
    also gather your grain" -- Torah spoke of the way of the world,
    you are permitted to let it (the scroll) go. These are the words of
    R. Ishmael. R. Shimon Bar Yochai says, " There is no end to it. If a
    person harvests at the time of harvest, plows at the time of plowing,
    sows at the time of sowing, winnows when it blows, when does he learn
    Torah? However, when Jews do the will of Hashem, their work is done
    by others...when they do not do the will of Hashem, they not only
    do not accomplish their own work but do the work of others...".

This is a good example of the situation when consideration of earlier
sources reveals what appears to be a minor variation of language that
turns out to suggest a resolution to knotty problems.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 03:35:20PM -0400, mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
:     "You shall also gather your grain" -- combine Torah study with the
:     way of the world. These are the words of R. Ishmael.... (Brochos 35b).

In contrast to:
:     Ben Dama, the nephew of R. Ishamel asked him, "A person like me who
:     has learned the entire Torah -- can I go and study the wisdom of
:     the Greeks"". He replied: "Go and find time which is neither day
:     nor night and study Greek wisdom then" (Menachos 99b)

I would like to suggest another resolution. R' Yishmael advocated TIDE or
at least CI's Torah vaAvodah, but not TuM. The question is whether the
ikkar is "ve'asafta deganekha", i.e. parnassah, and not DE in RSRH's
broader sense. Or, whether "Greek wisdom" is mada or Hirschian DE.

Back to RML's quote of Berakhos, I have a weaker answer for RSbY:
:                                                          R. Shimon Bar
:     Yochai says, "If a person plows at the time of plowing, sows at the
:     time of sowing, winnows when it blows, what will become of Torah ...

In contrast to:
:     "This scroll of the Torah shall not depart from you mouth and you
:     shall meditate upon it day and night". R. Yochanan said in the Name
:     of R. Shimon Bar Yochai, "Even if one reads the Shema morning and
:     evening he has fulfilled this verse... (Ibid).

RSbY e doesn't say "fulfilled his chiyuv". It could be that this pasuq is
about a different mitzvah than the one that requires full time engagement.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
micha@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

RYMaser wrote:
> Hekesh belongs to the midah of gezerah shava.
...
> See tosafos on Sukkah 31a (d'h v''ry savar lo makshinon).

That's how I understood it, this Tosafos being the only source I
encountered. (Actually, I learned Lulav haGazul in 6th grade and then
again in camp that summer, then two summers later, then the summer after
that -- joys of changing camps repeatedly. This notion was pretty well
drummed in during childhood.)

> Hekesh does not figure explicitly in R. Yishmael's 13 midos.

Isn't that soseir it simply being a kind of g"sh?

Jumping back to the text ellided above:
> In a hekesh, however, the two subjects to be compared (makkish) are
> found in one and the same possuk.

The way I figured it, R' Yishma'el's second midah is learning the
meaning and connotation of a word from its context. When you use that
to understand the word in a 2nd context, we call it a g"sh, when you
use it to understand the current pasuq, it's a heqesh. LAD, IMHO, etc...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
micha@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

"profile" <simone.maser@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
<<Rashbatz states that something learned from a hekesh is an essential
part of Torah (Guf Torah) as if it was written in the Torah itself, and
therefor hekesh is preferable (adif) to a gezerah shavah. That is why
this midah is not mentioned by R. Yishmael in his 13 midos shehaTorah
nidreshes bahem -- because it is a Guf Torah.>>

I don't buy it; many sources say that anything learned from 13 midos
is guf haTorah; this would not allow gezera shava or klal ufrat uklal
and leave hekesh out.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]