Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 33

Tue, 10 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Brisk (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: TU B'SHVAT (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 5. Stigma and financial crime (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Ancient Minhagim (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Geneivat Da'at/Onaat Devarim for a Ben Noa'h (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: ancient minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Tu Bi Shvat Seder (Micha Berger)
• 11. Yerushalayim, The Bulls Eye of the World (Cantor Wolberg)
• 12. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: ancient minhagim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Geneivat Da'at/Onaat Devarim for a Ben Noa'h (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Currency and Bond Trading; Ribis (Saul Mashbaum)
• 17. Re: Brisk (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Currency and Bond Trading; Ribis (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> Are you referring to the machlokes in Menachot 58a?  If so, the gemara
>> there says that the only difference between them is the flesh of chatat
>> ha'of.  Neither of them bans honey that is not burnt as part of a korban,
>> or as a korban.  And the Rambam explicitly paskens that honey can be
>> brought up, even to be burnt, if it's not intended as a korban.  Clearly
>> nesachim, which are not burnt at all, are excluded from this prohibition.
>> Issurei Mizbeach 5:1-2.

> The Rambam (Ma'aseh HaKarbanos 2:1) says that nesachim which come "im 
> hakorban" are poured, not burnt, on the altar.  He says (Issurei Mizbeah 
> 5:1) that you are hayyav on seor and dvash if you offer them (hiktiram) 
> "im hakorban o l'shem korban".

No.  "Lehaktir" means to *burn*, not to offer.


> It's clear then, that if "hiktiram" 
> means "bringing them onto the altar as part of a korban" then you are 
> hayyav.  You maintain, on the contrary, that "hiktiram" means burning.

Yes, that's what the word means.  You can't get away from that.

  
> But the sugya in Menahos demonstrates that that can't be because, as you 
> correctly point out, hatas haof isn't burnt.

And the machlokes is over what happens if you *did* burn it.  Look at
the gemara: "Rami bar Chama asked R Chisda, what if one brought the
flesh of chatat ha'of up on the altar?"   That is what this piece of
gemera is about, and that is what the machloket tana'im is about.

This sugya has nothing to do with se'or and devash; it's about the
prohibition of bringing up the leftovers of anything that is "mimenu
isheh" or that is a "korban", depending on how you darshen it.  Look
on the previous page: the prohibition applies (lechol hade'ot) to the
flesh of chatat, asham, kodshei kodshim, kodshei kalim, the leftovers
of the omer, shtei halechem, lechem hapanim, or menachot.  These are
all *both* "mimenu isheh" and "korban".  But chatat ha'of and the oil
of a metzora are both "korban" but not "mimenu isheh", and so the
machloket concerns them.  Se'or and devash are really irrelevant to
this whole discussion; they're only mentioned in passing while
quoting the pasuk.



> The law in 5:3 that you 
> cite says that things that are brought "l'sheim eitzim" are not 
> considered to be brought "im hakorban", but that can't apply to nesachim 
> since the Rambam specifically says that nesachim are offered "im hakorban".

But they are not burnt "im hakorban".


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> RYBS has stated that he could not compete for the minds of
> his students especially in Boston who attended Harvard and
> MIT without Brisker Torah to give them the intellectual
> challenge. i.e. he felt that on an American campus of the
> 1950's 1960s one could not compete with the atmosphere
> there by offering "pots and pans" instead of a highly
> intellectual/philosophical Judaism

It is difficult for me to imagine how Gemara could possibly NOT be an intellectual challenge.

Correction: I CAN'T imagine how Gemara could possibly not be an intellectual challenge.

Anyone who is so intelligent that he doesn't find Gemara to be
challenging... wow! I know that I'm not the brightest guy in the class, but
now I'm *really* impressed!

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Get down and dirty with these great work clothes! Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbv6DOod3YVeMoqJP1WdPNqUs1jcZmwt7GWctL6QeRhmNbF70/

On Mon, February 9, 2009 6:56 am, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
:  From Talmud Taanit 5b
:
: A man was travelling through the desert, hungry, thirsty, and tired,
...

The context is a mashal. R Nachman hosted R Yitzchaq for a meal, and
when R Yitzchaq was leaving, R Nachman asked R Yitzchaq for a
berakhah. R Yitzchaq answered with this mashal.

R' Nachman already had mitzvos (fruit), Torah (the many branches
giving shade) and wealth (the river), so with what could R Yitzchaq
bless him? That his children follow in his footsteps.

The song is beautiful, and one I meditate upon when worried about one
of my children. But the only connection to Tu biShvat is that the
metaphor leverages "ki haadam eitz hasadeh".

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Zev Sero wrote:
> No.  "Lehaktir" means to *burn*, not to offer.
See Rambam, H. Shabbos 29:14, Tshuvos HaRivash #10, Hiddushei HaGriz on 
Menahoth 57b s.v. "HaRambam b'Hilchos Issurei HaMizbeah" (there are two 
sections starting like that, you want the first, where he addresses your 
objection).

See also H. Maachalos Assuros 11:9-10, where he disagrees with the 
Sulhan Arukh I had previously cited, and notice that he says explicitly 
that we and the gentiles have the same criteria for yayin rauy l'nisuh.

I apologize for not having found this on Shabbos.

David Riceman

Our moderator RMB, echoing the classic ba'alei mussar, often raises the
issue of the relation between our reactions to improprieties that are
bein adam la'makon and those that are bein adam la'havero.  I have just
posted some sources related to this topic:

http://bdl.freehostia.com/2009/02/10/stigma-and-financial-crime/

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

R' Toby Katz wrote the following:

> You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was  
> talking
> about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story
> implies that whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit
> in the Torah that Moshe received.

Zev Sero responded:
"I think you've got the story confused.  IIRC there's nothing to  
indicate
that MR didn't recognise the halacha that was quoted in his name."

With all due respect, R' Toby did not get the story confused at all.
She is well aware of what you said. The story relating to Moshe  
Rabbeinu not
understanding something R' Akiva was expounding, is a metaphor. Rashi  
says that Moshe's confusion
was because he didn't finish learning yet, and was reassured by Hashem  
that they'll get there.
Moshe Rabbeinu cannot understand the Torah of Rabbi Akiva. The midrash  
teaches us that when God
enabled MR to visit RA's beis midrash, Moshe was confused, for he did  
not recognize the Torah that was being taught. Finally,
he heard RA say that what he was teaching was "from Moshe on Sinai,"  
and Moshe felt better.

The difference between the world of Moshe Rabbeinu and that of Rabbi  
Akiva is not merely clarity of vision,
but the integration of their world with the surrounding environment.

Another similar metaphor is even brought down that Pinchas remembered  
a Halacha that Moshe Rabbeinu himself couldn?t remember.
As I've commented before, there are people for whom life is either  
black or white. There are others who realize there are many shades
in between and that's where midrash, metaphor, allegory, parable and  
eilu v'eilu divrei Elokim chayyim play an important role.

Kol tuv.
ri

David Riceman wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> No.  "Lehaktir" means to *burn*, not to offer.
> See Rambam, H. Shabbos 29:14, Tshuvos HaRivash #10, Hiddushei HaGriz on 
> Menahoth 57b s.v. "HaRambam b'Hilchos Issurei HaMizbeah" (there are two 
> sections starting like that, you want the first, where he addresses your 
> objection).

I haven't got that sefer so I'll take your word for it.


> See also H. Maachalos Assuros 11:9-10, where he disagrees with the 
> Sulhan Arukh I had previously cited, and notice that he says explicitly 
> that we and the gentiles have the same criteria for yayin rauy l'nisuh.

No, he doesn't say anything about what rules the AKUM have -- how could
he?  How could he, or anyone, possibly know?  All he says is "eino
mitnasech" -- it doesn't become nesech.   Nesech is a halachic category;
the AKUM set their own rules, and can do whatever they like, and call what
they are doing whatever they like, and change their rules or invent new
ones whenever they like; but we set our rules, and we decide whether the
halachic category of nesech applies to this wine.  And we say that wine
unfit for the mizbeach cannot become nesech, no matter what they do to it,
or what they call it, or what they believe has happened to it.   (Perhaps,
and I'm speculating here, it might still be assur under the more general
category of tikrovet AZ, of which nesech is a subset; but it's not nesech
because we say it isn't, and therefore the gezera of stam yeinam, which is
not for general tikrovet but only for nesech, doesn't apply.)


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:19:03PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: Finally, since the networks aren't Jewish, does any of this apply to
: non Jews? The prohibition of Sheqer seems disconnected from any of the
: 7 mitzvot BN, so that seems inapplicable.

The fact that sheqer is called geneivas daas would to me mean we have to
prove whether or not it is included within the 7MbN.

Turning to CM 228:6, we find that "asur leramos .. o lignov da'atan ...
af im hu oveid kokhavim" in business. "Ve'af lignov da'as haberi'os
bidvarim" such that it looks like he's doing him a favor and isn't. The
SA's example is making an appointment to dine together with no plans on
ever doing so.

(Does anyone know if we can assume "aku"m" in the SA really means ovedei
AZ, or if perhaps it's a censor's word choice?)

So, geneivas da'as by a Yehudi of a nachri is assur.

That's not whether it's assur for them to commit, but it makes RAF's
perception that they disconnected less compelling.

: Onaah mentions ish et a'hiv and 'amito, which both seem to be
: regarding fellow Jews. But is it? The exception to the prohibition of
: onaat devarim regarding a rasha is explained ... as being a particular
: aspect of tokhe'ha, and hence, when the mitzvah of tokhe'ha cannot
: be fulfilled...                                       then the issur
: of onaat devarim returns in full force. Is that obligation two sidede,
: or are only Jews prevented from onaat devarim, while benei Noa'h are
: free to do as they please?

: How about motzi shem ra'?

MSR is geneivas da'as, and /we/ aren't allowed.

Actually LH is also limited by the pasuq to "achikha", and there is
no falsehood involved. I would think that saying LH about a nachri is
permitted. (It's not even DDD, as "slander" in ever country I heard of
is also limited to sheqer.) The only problem I can see is that one may
be developing a habit that will spill over into assur cases.

None of which addresses the original issue of slander by a nachri about
a nachri.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:48:22AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The other thing to remember is that the Rambam intended to replace 
: introductory study of Talmud with study of Mishneh Torah (see Igrot 
: HaRambam , ed. Sheilat, pp. 257-259, 311-313), so that articulating 
: methodology of Talmud study would be less useful.

This ties to our discussion of AhS yomi. The choice of a seifer halakhah
(the "shelish bemishnah" as the Rambam understands it) for one's beqi'us
rather than gemara.

I don't thing the Mishneh Torah was to replace the shelish begemara,
though.

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:47:58PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: T6...@aol.com wrote:  
:>You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was talking 
:>about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story 
:>implies that whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit 
:>in the Torah that Moshe received.

: I think you've got the story confused.  IIRC there's nothing to indicate
: that MR didn't recognise the halacha that was quoted in his name.  He was
: worried that with RA deducing halachot through methods of drash that he
: had not explored and couldn't follow, his own role had been forgotten; he
: was reassured when he saw that he was still being quoted, and that there
: were halachot that even RA couldn't prove but had to rely on MR's word.

Your read is problematic, because the gemara does seem to leave things
with the conclusion that Moshe saw proof that R' Aqiva was a greater
chakham than MRAH. In Sichos Mussar, RCShemeuelevitz uses this story to
show how generations add to the understanding of the Torah.

Also, why would the anav mikol adam be so concerned about people
remembering his own role?

RnTK's understanding, aside from being beloved by LORs giving shabbas
morning derashos, is that of the Maharashah (Chidushei Agados on Menachos
29b) and is pretty well explored and supported in R' Dr Moshe Koppel's
Metahalakhah, and our chaver RZLampel's Dynamics of Dispute.

See also R' Tzadoq, who revists this point numerous times: 
    Liqutei Maamarim pg 6
    Poqeid Iqarim #6
    Peri Tzadiq, Vayechi #10
    Peri Tzadiq, Zakhor #1
R' Tzadoq speaks of RA saying bepo'ael what MRAH was given bekoach,
RA being the yesod of TSBP. He also quotes Bamidbar Rabba that "vekhol
yaqar ra'asah eino" is R" Aqiva vechaveiro, to whom were revealed things
that weren't revealed to Moshe.

In this explanation, Moshe Rabbeinu was satisfied when he heard that
this study he didn't quite understand all followed from the system
he established.

You can disagree, as I pointed out Rashi did, but she does not have the
story confused.

I would also think that this maaseh assumes a particular stance on the
machloqes of when the Torah was first written in Ashuris. If Ashuris
wasn't used until the Torah was re-given in Ezra's time, then what did
MRAH see Hashem tying to each letter that motivated the whole trip to
the future?

LAD, the Medrash speaks of R' Aqiva's mountains of halakhos from the tagin
refers to the basic machloqes of the two schools of medrashei halakhah. R'
Yishmael holds "diberah Torah belashon benei adam" and his rules of
derashos apply to meanings (kelal uperat). R' Aqiva darshens words:
"akh", "raq", "es" (ribui umi'ut). In an extreme sense a student of R'
Yishma'el's would charicature R' Aqiva's focus on the details of syntax
as per this medrash.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:40:51AM -0500, Joseph Mosseri wrote:
:             Over the centuries this custom became well known among Jewish
: communities in every corner of the globe but it wasn't until the 16th
: century that this holiday was given a greater dimension. The Meqoubalim of
: 16th century Safed invigorated this holiday by prescribing what fruits and
: nuts to eat and in what order. They also said that 4 different cups of wine
: had to be drunk just like when the Hagadah would be recited on the night of
: Pesah.

:             These Meqoubalim were generally great Sephardic Rabbis who were
: steeped in the mysteries of the Torah. They had a belief that Creation is
: composed of four separate worlds, or levels. Classifying fruits that are
: eaten on Tu Bishbat into these separate categories helped to symbolize these
: levels.

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:58:10AM -0500, M Cohen wrote:
: 1. is there a Hebrew or English translation of  the Pri Etz Hadar available
: (for the zohar sections)

: 2. many 'modern' tu bishvat seders talk about 4 cups of wine
...

Anyone know of an article on the evolution of Tu biShvat? How much
predates the Chemdat Yamim, and what is older?

For people who don't know why I'm asking...

The notion of a seder for Tu biShvat is first found in Chemdas Yamim (CY).
Chemdas Yamim had some luck, as the real mequbalim wrote haskamos for it,
and used it like it's a real seifer. R' Dr Shneiur Leiman (of YU) recently
published a collection of haskamos in a journal called "Heichal haBesth".
It figures in the controversy between RY Eibshitz and RY Emden, as the
former wrote a haskamah to one edition, and the latter pointed out its
sabbatean allusions.

The debate among historians is whether Chemdas Yamim was written by
Nathan of Gaza or one of his followers. Nathan was Shabbatai Zvi's
"Eliyahu" figure.

Before mequbalei Tzefat, Tu biShvat was marked by a lack of tachanun,
one wasn't allowed to make a taanis, and of course the few farmers then
in Eretz Yisrael changed their calendars for maaser. Ibur Shoshanim (R'
Yissachar ibn Susan 16th cent) notes that Ashkenazim would eat many fruits
-- much like the total observance of TB by Yekkes and Litvaks today. But
the seder originater in Chemdas Yamim.

Therefore, I'd be curious to know who established what -- what came from Tzefat, and what came from CY.

That said, I wouldn't simply dismiss a practice because of the CY origins.
Saying LeDavid H' Ori during teshuvah season is also from Seifer Chemdas
Yamim, and I didn't drop that.

But it is quite likely the thousands of Jews, mostly Eidot haMizrach,
who make a Tu biShvat seider are actually doing all these allusions
about the alleged future return of Shabbatai Zvi.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Shmos 20:6  But Who shows kindness for thousands (of generations) to  
those who love Me and observe My commandments.

The commentators have pointed out that the word "and observe"  
ul'shomrei can be rearranged to spell Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) as it  
is spelled
in Tanach. This is a remez of our connection to the holiest center of  
the universe.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090210/8e8bb608/attachment-0001.htm>

Me:
>>  and notice that he says explicitly that we and the gentiles have the 
>> same criteria for yayin rauy l'nisuh.
> RZS:
> No, he doesn't say anything about what rules the AKUM have -- how could
> he?  How could he, or anyone, possibly know?  All he says is "eino
> mitnasech" -- it doesn't become nesech.   Nesech is a halachic category;
> the AKUM set their own rules, and can do whatever they like,
Look later on in the same halacha "lo gazru ela al hayayin harauy 
l'hitnasech".  If "l'hitnasech" means "to become subject to the gezeirah 
of stam yaynam", as you seem to understand it, then the phrase is a 
meaningless tautology.  If, as makes sense, it means "to be poured as a 
libation" then the reisha is clearly talking about an idolatrous libation.

David Riceman

David:
> I don't thing the Mishneh Torah was to replace the shelish begemara,
> hough

I agree.

But I would venture to add that gmara for rambam is more a method of
davar mitoch davar than a fixed text like bavli

Perhaps he envisioned his magnum opus as new mishna and the discussions
on it as its gmara.

This has actually happened tur is a mishna and beis yoseph its gmara.

You can see Shulchan Aruch as mihsna and Ketzos/Nesivos/Tumim et. al. as
its gmara.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Tangentially:
I overheard 2 rabbis saying that their school had a phone line as
residential and not as commercial. I confided with one later and I said
it sounds like gneivas da'as to me.

I went to my LOR and asked a she'ilah w/o naming names.

He explained that this NOT gneivas da'as but gneiva mamash. He gave
a mashal

    "if one lies says his kid is less than 12 when the kid is older in
    order to get a reduced fare, it is mamash gneiva.".

So misrepresentation that leads to an illegal price is mamash gneiva.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

David Riceman wrote:
> Me:
>>>  and notice that he says explicitly that we and the gentiles have the 
>>> same criteria for yayin rauy l'nisuh.

>> RZS:
>> No, he doesn't say anything about what rules the AKUM have -- how could
>> he?  How could he, or anyone, possibly know?  All he says is "eino
>> mitnasech" -- it doesn't become nesech.   Nesech is a halachic category;
>> the AKUM set their own rules, and can do whatever they like,

> Look later on in the same halacha "lo gazru ela al hayayin harauy 
> l'hitnasech".  If "l'hitnasech" means "to become subject to the gezeirah 
> of stam yaynam", as you seem to understand it

NO, I understand it to mean "to become yayin nesech"; and we have already
confined that to that which is fit to be used for our nesachim.  If an
AKUM takes cooked wine and pours a libation for his god, as the rules of
his religion allow, it's not yein nesech.  (I speculate that it might
still be tikrovet AZ, of which yein nesech is a subset, but that might
depend on whether he dedicated the whole drink to his god, or only the
bit that he spilled.)  Therefore if he moves it without pouring a
libation, it's not stam yeinam.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RMB:
>>
If ribis were inherently wrong, it would be assur to charge nachriim as
well. I therefore would argue that ribis isn't a lack of tzedeq or din,
but a lack of achdus of kelal Yisrael. As the pasuq says, "Vekhi yamukh
ACHIKHA umatah yado..." And similarly after the ribis, "vechai ACHIKHA
imakh". (Vayiqra 25:36, lefi BM 62a) The problem isn't that it's unjust,
but that it's unbrotherly.
>>


The Torah Temima (who was, as is well known, a banker) relates to the
question of how the Torah prohibited taking ribit from Jews, and permitted
taking it from non-Jews, and says something similar to what RMB is saying
here.

Consider an economic cooperative association. Members agree to treat fellow
members according to set rules, offering each other economic privileges not
offered to non-members. One would assume that members do not consider
themselves "better" than non-members, or that they feel  they are justified
in dealing unethically with non-members; they are just offering fellow
members some special discounts, which they themselves are entitled to
receive from fellow members. In regard to ribit, Jews are such an economic
cooperative association.

See TT to Dvarim 23:21 d"h Umnam

Saul Mashbaum
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090210/3e1cdfe8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 2:44pm IST, R Marty Bluke wrote:
: The Seridei Aish in both a teshuva and a published letter says that R'
: Chaim's analyses are not historically true. He writes that it is clear
: that the Rambam's derech was not R' Chaim's. All you have to do is
: look at the Teshuvos Harambam where he deals with some of the
: issues/contradictions. The Rambam never gives any lomdus to explain
: his psak, rather he gives what we would call Baal Habatish answers. He
: had a different girsa in the Gemara, their copy of the Mishne Torah
: was wrong, he made a mistake, etc. Not once does he employ anything
: close to Brisker lomdus.

I wasn't suggesting that the Rambam thought like a Brisker.

To rephrase my point in a way that I hope is clearer:
The Rambam relied on building a halachic geshtalt, not something that
can be articulated. That's where his "nir'eh li" comes from.

We today lack his ability to do that. So we instead try a more
scientific description rather than building a feel. But that doesn't
mean that the Brisker description is false; rather it's an attempt
to find an articulation for a real pattern.

(To use R' Moshe Koppel's metaphor for halahah:)
The Rambam is the native speaker, who has a feel for how the language
flows, and uses it to write poetry. R' Chaim is the one who studies
those poems and deduces the implies rules of grammar.

Yes, there will be a few times the rules so derived are illusory. The
poet himself admitted he was capable of erring, and it's his data we're
using. But that doesn't invalidate the process and system as a whole.

The things the Rambam had to explain was only the list of those odd
cases. They are a tiny minority of the things /we/ seek an explanation for.

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 6:08pm IST, R Eli Turkel wrote:
:> I was told that R chaim brisker was saving bachurim from college by
:> making gmara intellectually competitve

:> Was this hora'as sha'ah? I dunno.

:> I have always enjoyed brisker learning but I doubted its halachic veracity
:> early on.

: I dont believe the story. If anything the problem in Voloshin was
: haskala and not university per se. As I pointed out RCS himself always
: insisted there was nothing new in his drech.

: OTOH RYBS has stated that he could not compete for the minds of his
: students especially in Boston who attended Harvard and MIT without
: Brisker Torah to give them the intellectual challenge.

I think here too we have to distinguish between motivations we post-facto
see in things done and having a conscious program.

I also do not think that RCB set out to compete with the universities.
But it was an era where the zeitgeist pushed our youth out to secular
education and other Isms. Such a mileau is going to also generate interest
in a more systemitized and anlytic approach to study and thereby de
facto interest talmidim who otherwise would have left.

Since I don't think it was a hora'ah, I don't htink it was a hora'as
sha'ah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

> Consider an economic cooperative association. Members agree to treat
> fellow members according to set rules, offering each other economic
> privileges not offered to non-members. One would assume that members
> do not consider themselves "better" than non-members, or that they feel
> they are justified in dealing unethically with non-members; they are just
> offering fellow members some special discounts, which they themselves
> are entitled to receive from fellow members. In regard to ribit, Jews
> are such an economic cooperative association.See TT to Dvarim 23:21 d"h
> Umnam
> Saul Mashbaum

Leshitasi and I think RSR Hirsch et. al. it's all about a societal
co-operative

Raya taryag applies to no individual only to society as a whole.

When rashi vayishlach says taryag mitzos
Shamarti how is is shayach in one individual?

I gave a teirutz this year: Ya'akov avinu is the very last individual
to whom all 613 applied because he is the last to be kolleil Israel.
Once dvided into shevatim this could ONLY be done by community/society.

And AISI the tachlis is mamleches kohanim v'goy qaddosh. That to me
trumps individual perfection.

Monastic hermits such as eliyahu hanavi and rashby are important for
society as a whole. But not the tachlis of every individual. Hirsch is
pretty clear re: how qehilla ought to work. If you have 1,000 Jews and
999 are R Yisroel Salanters you are not building a chevra qadisha.

You need chtotvei eitzim. But we also treat each other b'ahava aside
from economics. It's a spiritual co-operative, too.

KNLFAD
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 33
**************************************

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..."