Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 88

Mon, 03 Mar 2008

• 1. Pikudei If You Do Your Part, God Will Do His (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Re: History (hlampel@koshernet.com)
• 3. ashkenaz and sefard (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 4. Re: Roast lamb (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: history (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Jewish Music (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Re: Girl Scout cookies (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: The Klausenberger Rebbe on Zionism after the Holocaust (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Maasar Rishon (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Sheva Brochos (RallisW@aol.com)
• 12. Re: ashkenaz and sefard (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: History (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Pre-Sinaitic conversions (T613K@aol.com)
• 15. R'Zeira/Gemara Megilah (Mordechai Goldstein)
• 16. Re: Sheva Brochos (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Sheva Brochos (Shayna Livia Korb)
• 18. Re: History (hlampel@koshernet.com)
• 19. Re: history (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 20. Re: History (Micha Berger)
• 21. Re: history (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 22. Basis of AZ (Zimshe Friedman)
• 23. Re: Does God Change His Mind? (Michael Makovi)
• 24. Re: History (Michael Makovi)

When it was time to actually erect the mishkan, the weight of the
krashim, the wooden uprights, made the task virtually impossible. The
workmen could not erect the Tabernacle because of its massive weight.
They brought it to Moses. He asked God how it was possible for a human
being to erect it. God told him to make the attempt and the Tabernacle
would stand on its own, as if he had put it up. Therefore, the Torah
states in the passive voice, the Tabernacle was erected (40:17), to
imply although Moses tried to erect it, it stood up by itself,
miraculously. (Rashi).
ri

RMB wrote:
> Chazal ... when they draw halachic conclusions, it can't be from
the history -- since that would imply an interest in historicity that
numerous rishonim tell us didn't exist. <

Which rishonim and where?

Zvi Lampel

>The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland
>Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came
>there from EY.

I came across a SHU"T Kol Mevaser II 42 that during the Churban Bayit
Sheni, HUGLU YEHUDIM RABIM L'GERMANIYA and quotes a Tshuvot haROSH
Klal 20 Din 2 and the Beit Yosef TUR YD 82:(Chachmei Ashkenaz have a mesora
from their ancestors Mi'YEMEI HA'CHURBAN).

So it's possible that Ashkenazim not only came via Italy but continued on to
what's now Germany.

KT
Josh

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 9:47 AM, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
> A while back, R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Which reminds me: Would you mind telling us where that Aruch Hashulchan
> is?

IN the siman deaing with zli on leil Pesach

> Akiva Miller

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This whole attitude is so a-historical as to be disturbing

> And Tosfos about Pinchas, Eliyahu, and Beis Hakvaros?

> We have discussed before that chazal have a tendency to identify
> together people who seem to have nothing in common. In many cases it
> makes people hundreds of years old or on the contrary had children
> very early when there is no reason in pshat for this. In fact by
> Eliyahu and many other such cases there are other sources that dispute
> these connects. Hence, some explain that these people had
> characteristics in common or were a gilgul of one another etc.

> As MYG points out one difficulty is when the gemara or rishonim try
> and learn halachot from these identifications.

Eduyos 8:7

HLMM she'ein eliyahu bo letamei ultaheir

   1. Did Moshe Rabbeinu know about Eliyahu Hanavi coming beefore
   Moshiach?
   2. Did he know he would live until Moshiach's timea/
   3. Did he know that Pinchas was Eliyahu?
   4. Why din't Moshe Rabbeinu Pray taht he himslf would live via fiery
   chariot to explain all the halachos of Tum'a nad Taharah? Why did
   concede this to eliyahu w/o protest?
   5. If you'll answer it was time for yeshoshua to rule, same for
   Eliyahu, it was time for Elisha but he still di NOT need to die! So
   Moshe Rabbeinu could have lived like Eliyahu andd simply dropped out
   of sight!

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> (Using TIDE loosely, as RSRH was vehemently and vociferously against
> Hildesheimer Seminary's use of Chokhmas Yisrael (O Wissenschaft), and
> Hildesheimer's preached vehemently against Austritt.)

Talking about another Berliner
I asked R. Kanarfogel about RYDS position re: Wissenshaft and Torah
His response was it depends. If it made sense he embraced it, if it did not
he rejected it.

Kind of like my post on Zli keidar! <smile>

On a more general [and perhaps worrisome] topic
When did Halachah start evolving into "irrinational" anti-sechel norms?

I once heard in the hallow halls of RIETS that the Rav [RYDS} said if it
makes no sense it cannot be halachah. and this is pPerhaps why RYDS did no
buy into the Taz's humra of Davening late on Shauvos!]- and even the Magen
Avraham ONLY required saying Kiddush after Tzeis [ayein sham!]
--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Akiva Blum <ydamyb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Second, we don't do bitul
> intentionally. For both of these reasons the cookie is dairy, and can't
> be eaten after meat.

> <<<

> >>This isn't intentional. It was already botul when she received it.<<

> The whey was not added by the girl who sold the cookies, but it WAS added
> intentionally. It doesn't matter /who/ added it. It was still added
> intentionally. It's right there in the ingredients list! What more
> proof do you need
> that it was intentional?? And it's not as if just one box or one batch
> happened to have a little whey dropped in. They keep doing it!

> <<<

> (FWIW, the "she" is the wife, not the girl)

> Generally, the intention we refer to is the intention for bitul, not the
> intention for adding.
> However, where the addition was made for a specific person, we consider it
> as if that person himself intended to add, and therefore to do bitul. In the
> case of a producer for selling to Jews as well as non-Jews, and there is an
> increase in production because of the Jews, it is considered as if the Jews
> themselves added bemaizid (Tshuvas Rashbash quoted by Darkei Tshuva 108, and
> KSA of Rav Pfeifer).
> In our case, even bemaizid isn't milchik because there's no issur here.

See Rema 99:6 re: chcalv taht fell into water.

Nire'h li pashut that it is problematic to add the cookies to a feligshig
recpie if one constgrues that the original bittul of the whey is construed
as bemeizid.

Nire'h li pashut if you do NOT consture the manufacturer as being mevateil
bemeizid that you may be mevatil it lechatchila [see Ba'ei Hetev in the name
of the Tach]

Nir'eh li pashut that to EAT said cookie after meat - even if the original
bittul was bemiezied - should be ok.[At most one should wait an hour.] We
ashkenazim hold that waiting is minhag not halachah, and there is not reason
to be machmir if the whey is battel.

The humra of waiting for a tacvshil of chlaval was added onlater andis NOT
mei'ikkar hadin anyway. Thus, Sephardim who must wati 6 hours midin need
not wait becasue this is not halav but a tavshil at most

S'nif to be meikel is tosafos who requries Zero waiting is required [so
Behag and is the original Meimra/P'sak of Rabbi Yochanan before emended to
conform with Rav Chisdah]

Kein Nir'eh lefi aniyas da'ati

[I originally discussed this years ago when Equal TABLETS had a dariy
ingredietn that was not in Equal posder. I had assumed no davar hama'ami
etc. as being a factor.]

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> A machloqes he also finds during the Napoleanic Wars, between Rabbi
> Menachem Mendel of Rimanov and the Rabbi of Ropshitz.

It also seem that the Ba'al Hatanya favored the czar in this struggle
because he distruted emancipation, but Hirsch later on embraced it
[post 1848]

Also a later Chabad Rebbe attacked Mendelsohnn as worth than J of
Nazareth. I do not belive Hirsch would have shared that hashkafa in
that he equated Mendlesohn with Rambam in Letter 18.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

> Reading Babba Metzia I am not sure what the rules are for Maasar Rishon.
> 1. Maasar Rishon should be given to the Levi. As Cohen is also Levi, does he
> get Maasar Rishon as well?
> 2. When Ezra came to Eretz Israel he gave a penalty to the Leviyim. What was
> this penalty? Did he decide NOT to give Maasar to the Levy, but instead to
> give to the Cohen? or to give both.
> If this was the case how could he be OKER mitzva deorayta?

> Reading Beith Habechira LeMeiri, Babba Metzia Daf 11, Amud 1, it looks like
> there are two opinions.
> But reading other sources (Rmabam and others) I understood that he did not
> give the Levi, but to the Cohen instead.
...
> galsaba

Prof. Ephraim Urbach The Halakha has a chapter on this, in which he
uses predominately Yerushalmi and Tosefta from many mesechtot to
reconstruct the history.

Mikha'el Makovi

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Michael Makovi <mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Kant felt
> > that because of man's limitations of reason,
> > no one could really know if there is a God and an afterlife, and
> > conversely that no one could really know that there was not a God and
> > an afterlife.
> > Therefore, he contended for the sake of society and morality, people
> > are reasonably justified in believing in them (God and olam haba),
> > even though there
> > was no way to know for sure. In some sense he was reflecting free will
> > and suggested hedging one's bets.
> > ri

> Of course, this does very little to inspire conscientious observance.
> Kant shows that it is logical and reasonable to behave properly, but
> who says I want to be logical and reasonable? See Dayan Grunfeld to
> Horeb, Rabbi Berkovits G-d Man and History, and probably a million
> other places, on this fact.

And what if a person wants to behave in a Divinie of "G-dly" manner.

To put it simply, he knows no Halcha but he is motivated to live up to
his innate sprit/soul/highernature etc.

--
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/

I understand that the Gemoro rules that if a couple marries, and both have
been married before, they are entitled to three days of Sheva Brochos. I
recently heard that a local rabbi ruled that just such a couple, wasn't
entitled to any Sheva Brochos or at most one day. Can anyone shed any
light on this matter?

There is a famous story that the community was of Mainz was destroyed
because that the time of the churban they did not properly mourn the
destruction.

The trouble with these stories is that there is no historical basis
to claims that the Ashkenaz community is that old. What others have
mentioned is letters from the kings of the holy roman empire inviting
Jews from Luca italy to move into Germany

kol tuv
Eli

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Dr. Josh Backon <backon@vms.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >The usual claim is much stronger. That ashkenaz ie German Rhineland
> >Jewry actually came there from Italy and that Italian 800 CE Jews came
> >there from EY.

> I came across a SHU"T Kol Mevaser II 42 that during the Churban Bayit
> Sheni, HUGLU YEHUDIM RABIM L'GERMANIYA and quotes a Tshuvot haROSH
> Klal 20 Din 2 and the Beit Yosef TUR YD 82:(Chachmei Ashkenaz have a mesora
> from their ancestors Mi'YEMEI HA'CHURBAN).

> So it's possible that Ashkenazim not only came via Italy but continued on to
> what's now Germany.
...
> Josh

--
Eli Turkel

hlampel@koshernet.com wrote:
> RMB wrote:
> Chazal ... when they draw halachic conclusions, it

> can't be from the history -- since that would
> imply an interest in historicity that numerous
> rishonim tell us didn't
> exist. <

> Which rishonim and where?

See PHM Avoth 1:16, ed. Sheilat, p. 19, s.v. "v'hahelek hashlishi". See
SA OH 307:16, though I had thought that attitudes changed somewhat after
Ibn Khaldun demonstrated that history could be a form of hochmah.

David Riceman

From: Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:zev@sero.name)

>>As I have always understood it, the Keini were Jews. They're a separate
nation in the same sense as all gerim are: they are not of the 12 tribes;
until they intermarry with Bnei Yisrael they are not "kehal Hashem"; and
they have no portion in the land. <<

Meforshim on Shoftim are all over the place. Some say the Keini were Jews,
others say they were non-Jews who were closely allied with the Jews, and
others say that some of the Keini were Jews and some were not. Interesting to me
is that they are still called "gerim" by those who consider them Jews, even
though by the time of Shoftim they have already been Jews for generations.

This all comes up in the context of Yael (the one who killed Sisrah in her
tent) -- with meforshim disagreeing about whether she was Jewish or not.

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

Hi, I had done a google search on the R'Zeira maaseh, and saw on your
list that some years back everyone was begging for a transcription of this
"geshmakeh pshat" the agadata in Megilah from the Lubavitcher Rebbe. Since
I found it in its entiretly I thought I'd forward the URL to you:
http://www.sichosinenglish.org/cgi-bin/calendar?holiday=purim13305

I think if saying this pshat at one's seudah, one would run it together
with the nice Dvar Torah that Rabbi Berger posted, I include that below,
too, one would have a very nice Dvar Torah on their hands indeed!

Best,
Mordechai Goldstein

"The Names are Suitable for Yisrael"
Rabbi Yosef Sharabi, Rabbi of Givat Mordechai, Jerusalem

The above sentence is from Midrash Tanchuma. Names are very significant to a
person both during his lifetime and certainly after his death. During life a
name is often a factor leading to good or evil. And after death, a name denotes
how a person will be remembered. This is similar to the words of the Almighty:
"This is my name forever, and this is my memory from generation to generation"
[Shemot 3:15].

A person's name is not only a way to identify his body but mainly a mark of
his soul. As was written by the author of Noam Elimelech, the main aspect
of the name of a person, such as Reuven or Shimon, is the soul and not the
body. As proof, one can look at someone who is asleep. It is easier to wake
him by calling his name than by shaking him. The reason is that the soul
rises during sleep, and the best way to retrieve it is to call it by name.

The significance and importance of a person's name can be seen in the
first verses of this week's Torah portion. "And these are the names of Bnei
Yisrael... Together with Yaacov... Reuven and Shimon" [Shemot 1:1-2]. This
teaches us that the tribes are not only sons in Yaacov's family but are
specifically "Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehuda." This is emphasized by Rashi,
based on the Midrash. "These are the names of Bnei Yisrael -- He listed them
again in order to show his fondness for them. He would take them out and
return them by counting and by name, as is written, 'He takes their hosts
out by number, He calls them all by name' [Yeshayahu 40:26]."

In recognition of the importance of a name, Rabbi Zachai gave as one of the
reasons for his long life the fact that he never called a colleague by a
nickname (Megilla 27b). The Tosafot explained that he did not use a nickname
even if it was not derogatory. Rabbi Zeira was also proud of the same thing:
"I did not call my friend by his nickname" [Megilla 28a].

This was the way our sages have always been. They called a person by his
personal name and not by his family name. This was true not only in calling
one to the Torah or in formal documents such as a bill of sale or a divorce
but also in daily contact. In addressing a rabbi, they would always add the
proper title before his name.

It is true that most people long ago stopped caring about this matter.
However, as is written in the book Get-Mekushar, "Many of the simple people in
these countries are called by their family names." That is, this is a custom of
"amei haaretz," the simple people. Wise men always turned to each other with
the phrase, "Moshe, you have spoken well!" Thus, if you use a proper name,
you have spoken correctly and appropriately.

RallisW@aol.com wrote:
> I understand that the Gemoro rules that if a couple marries, and both
> have been married before, they are entitled to three days of Sheva
> Brochos. I recently heard that a local rabbi ruled that just such a
> couple, wasn't entitled to any Sheva Brochos or at most one day. Can
> anyone shed any light on this matter?

The three days is not for sheva brochos but for issur melacha. He can't
go to work for three days so he can stay home with his wife (EH 64:2),
but they only say sheva brochos at the first meal, and that only if it's
on the same day (EH 62:6).

--
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

I assume you mean the gemara in kesuvos 7...
I recently was learning this gemara, and I don't think that it's clear that
the couple is necessarily "entitled" to three days, but I think the idea
that they can't have any sheva brachos at all is very strange. I'm not
looking at it, but I think that the gemara basically says that there is no
such thing as a besula who has less than 7 days, and no almana who has less
than 1. Maybe the rav thinks that a gerusa gets less than an almana, but I
thought the gemara was using those cases to illustrate the extreme
boundaries - and to bring out a juxtaposition between marriage and death.

Shayna Korb

On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, <RallisW@aol.com> wrote:
> I understand that the Gemoro rules that if a couple marries, and both have
> been married before, they are entitled to three days of Sheva Brochos. I
> recently heard that a local rabbi ruled that just such a couple, wasn't
> entitled to any Sheva Brochos or at most one day. Can anyone shed any light
> on this matter?

Re: History

> RMB wrote:
> Chazal ... when they draw halachic conclusions, it

> can't be from the history -- since that would
> imply an interest in historicity that numerous
> rishonim tell us didn't
> exist. <

I asked,
> Which rishonim and where?

R. David Riceman responded:
See PHM Avoth 1:16, ed. Sheilat, p. 19, s.v. "v'hahelek hashlishi". See
SA OH 307:16, though I had thought that attitudes changed somewhat after
Ibn Khaldun demonstrated that history could be a form of hochmah.

My reply:
The Shulchan Aruch simply says that one should not read books about wars on
Shabbos. This is because despite the page-turning, can't-put-the-book-down
pull that such works have, there is no G-d-directed value in them. In this
sense, of course, our teachers held no interest in history-for-history's
sake. As the Gemora says, "mai d'hava, hava."

But the context of the statement I was wondering about was the
history-related statements made by Chazal which, by definition, interest
Chazal and should interest us. But interest them and us in what way[s]? The
thesis RMB said is held by numerous rishonim is that the interest Chazal
had in them was solely in the lessons to be drawn, and that they were not
interested in, and we should not be interested in, whether those statements
are meant to depict actual historical occurances.

In other words, regarding Scriptural historical narratives (putting aside
the controversial points), say the events of Yaakov Avinu's life, I hope we
agree Chazal and rishonim maintained that they actually occurred, and for
that reason those events carry whatever lessons for us they do. The issue
is regarding the talmudic and Aggadic narratives: Did numerous rishonim
maintain that for all Chazal cared, they did not actually occur? And if so,
my question is: which rishonim and where?

I don't have Rav Sheilat's edition of the Payrush HaMishnayos. Could I trouble you to present what he says?

Zvi Lampel

R' ET (old):
> This whole attitude is so a-historical as to be disturbing
MYG:
And Tosfos about Pinchas, Eliyahu, and Beis Hakvaros?
R' ET (new):
We have discussed before that chazal have a tendency to identify
together people who seem to have nothing in common. In many cases it
makes people hundreds of years old or on the contrary had children
very early when there is no reason in pshat for this. In fact by
Eliyahu and many other such cases there are other sources that dispute
these connects. Hence, some explain that these people had
characteristics in common or were a gilgul of one another etc.

As MYG points out one difficulty is when the gemara or rishonim try
and learn halachot from these identifications.

Actually, what I was trying to point out was that Chazal did believe that
the historical facts were such, to the degree that they were confident
learning Halachos from them. Considering that they were way closer to the
time that these events happened, it seems to me that one should hesitate
very long before dismissing them by explaining that they were wrong or
talking about metaphysical matters, just because we don't see the connection
now.

KT,
MYG

I'm surprised a bit by RZL's request for meqoros that an aggadic story does
not make a historical assertion by someone who has been around this the
past few iterations as well.

We have, during the course of the years, found meqoros in R Saadia
Gaon, the Rambam (who is quite harsh toward the literalists a few
paragraphs before he lists the ikkarim), R' Avraham ben haRambam (in
his introduction to the subject), the Maharshah, the Baal haMe'or,
the Maharal, the Ramchal (haqdamah to Medrash Rabba), the Gra (Peirush
al Qama Agados), RSRH, RYS (from RDKatzh's Tenu'as haMussar, see
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol15/v15n003.shtml#03>)...

I assume RDE has an authoritative collection of sources in his DT vol I.

I also think I provided a way in which RET can accept the notion that the
members of Chazal who derived halakhos from such stories could still have
not assumed they were historical. One assumes a rule of the system is
that one does not besmirch a role model by attributing actions to them
that are today (at the time of the retelling) considered assur. Then,
the survival of a story into the corpus would imply that there are no such
issurim contained therein. It's a way to pick the brains of the previous
generations who brought the story down to the one drawing the conclusion.

It would be more useful to me if he would address why this answer doesn't
satisfy rather than restate the original question anew.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R' ET (old):
> This whole attitude is so a-historical as to be disturbing
MYG:
And Tosfos about Pinchas, Eliyahu, and Beis Hakvaros?
R' ET (new):
We have discussed before that chazal have a tendency to identify
together people who seem to have nothing in common. In many cases it
makes people hundreds of years old or on the contrary had children
very early when there is no reason in pshat for this. In fact by
Eliyahu and many other such cases there are other sources that dispute
these connects. Hence, some explain that these people had
characteristics in common or were a gilgul of one another etc.

As MYG points out one difficulty is when the gemara or rishonim try
and learn halachot from these identifications.

Actually, what I was trying to point out was that Chazal did believe that
the historical facts were such, to the degree that they were confident
learning Halachos from them. Considering that they were way closer to the
time that these events happened, it seems to me that one should hesitate
very long before dismissing them by explaining that they were wrong or
talking about metaphysical matters, just because we don't see the connection
now.

KT,
MYG

Would you be kind enough to post where that Rambam is?
Thanks-
ZF

From: "Eli Turkel" <eliturkel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 19:29:57 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] basis of AZ

I based myself on Rambam who views idol worship as a substitute for a G-d they
cannot see. In a recent trip to China I asked the local guides about Buddha.
They also insisted that the idols represented some higher power.

> And what if a person wants to behave in a Divinie of "G-dly" manner.

> To put it simply, he knows no Halcha but he is motivated to live up to his
> innate sprit/soul/highernature etc.
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

That's another good objection, but not to Kant per se, but rather, to
any morality sans revelation. If a person wants to be good, well and
good, but how will he know how? Ein am haaretz chasid, the Gemara says
regarding Avimelech. (See Rav Hirsch's beautiful comment on this
incident and on objective actual deed versus kavana of the deed. Much
of the same thought is found in David Hazony's "Why Judaism Has Laws",
www.azure.co.il, based on Rav Berkovits.)

One may wish to say that Noachides must have some way of determining
the truth by reason, for the Torah seems to demand this - only Jews
saw Sinai, after all. To this, I'd say that Jews are to be their
example (ohr lagoyim, mamlechet kohanim v'goy kadosh, chochmatecha
u'vinatecha b'einei ha'amim), and so this may in fact be their
"revelation". (But what of Aztecs and Chinese that never saw a Jew? I
don't know. This question is disturbingly similar to Christian
question of a person who never met a Christian to tell him about J-man
- does he get salvation despite not choosing J-man?) Second, even if
they don't need revelation per se, they still need some sort of G-d
concept to justify their morality - Rambam says a Noachide who does
what he does not because G-d said so, is wise but not righteous.

Mikha'el Makovi

> the members of Chazal who derived halakhos from such stories could still have
> not assumed they were historical. One assumes a rule of the system is
> that one does not besmirch a role model by attributing actions to them
> that are today (at the time of the retelling) considered assur. Then,
> the survival of a story into the corpus would imply that there are no such
> issurim contained therein. It's a way to pick the brains of the previous
> generations who brought the story down to the one drawing the conclusion.
> R' Micha

We could generalize this to say that any story of a gadol, in which he
is depicted as doing such-and-such, we can learn that such is a
legitimate way of behaving. Even if he didn't really do it, the fact
that he is thought of having done it, lends it legitimacy.

I'm reminded of mesechet Shabbat, about where we learning carrying in
the mishkan. We learn that Moshe's command in last week's parsha, to
stop doing melacha and bringing to the mishkan, was on Shabbat. But
the Gaonim and Gaonic Rishonim (Rabbenu Chananel, Rif, etc.) delete
this last part about its being on Shabbat; they say that just by
calling carrying a melacha, we learn that it is one of the 39, and it
doesn't matter whether it was on Shabbat or on Tuesday.

Similarly, the Gemara says that no one actually planted dyes for the
mishkan; we brought dyed thread with us out of Egypt! But the Gemara
says, were you to build your own mishkan from scratch today, you'd
plant your own dyes. Based on this, the Sefat Emet solves a riddle:
the Gemara says kosheir u'matir was in the nets for catching chilazon.
But where did they catch chilozonim??!! No, says the SE; they brought
techelet thread out of Egypt, but were you to build your own mishkan
today, you too would catch the chilazon!

Of course, there are many questionable stories of gedolim depicting
things they definitely would not have done. But hopefully we can agree
that Chazal did not tell such stories.

As my rabbi might say, you have to drink a lechaim to the hava amina.

I'm reminded of a story of the Chofetz Chaim: he was in court as the
guarantor for a loan, and his lawyer testified to his character with a
story: a thief robbed the CC, and the CC ran after the thief yelling,
"It's yours now! It's yours now! You have not stolen!" The judge very
skeptically asked whether the lawyer honestly believed such a story.
The lawyer replied, "I don't know, but I do know that they don't tell
such stories about you and me".

Mikha'el Makovi

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 88
**************************************
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."