Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 168

Mon, 17 Aug 2009

• 1. Judging (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: Not livid with anger (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owne r (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Kashrus of a Restaurant Under the Supervision of its Owne r (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Not livid with anger (David Riceman)
• 7. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Michael Makovi)
• 8. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 10. Re: Not livid with anger (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 11. Fw: zivchei & olah; bideved or lichatchila; re: yhirmiyahu hanavi..... (Harvey Benton)
• 12. wedding phrase; why turned up-side down???; yirmiyahu; ch 7; (Harvey Benton)
• 13. Re: wedding phrase; why turned up-side down???; yirmiyahu; ch 7; (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 14. Re: Classical Academia, Deconstruction, and Mesorah (Micha Berger)

From R' A. Shafran on C-C

"The Jewish faith is a system of both beliefs and laws, and, like all laws,
Judaism's are meant to be applied objectively. To be sure, there are
instances where certain empathetic concerns can yield leniencies. In a
kashrut case, for example, if hewing to the normative approach in
particular situations will result in a great financial loss, it may be
proper to adopt a more lenient one. Or, if a married man goes missing and
is suspected to have died, certain evidentiary rules are waived for
testimony about the man's death, so that his wife may remarry. But those
leniencies exist within the law, and when they can be invoked is itself the
subject of law and precedent. Where there is no such recourse, empathy is
insufficient to supplant the law. We are admonished to "not favor the poor
man in his dispute" (Exodus, 23:3). The job of a judge, as Judge Sotomayor
rightly concluded, is to apply law, not feelings."


I would appreciate the chevra's take on this. IMHO it is what we used to
call in the academy "hand waving".   Certainly there are cases where there
is no recourse (R'YBS famously on the giyoret who brought the intended
chatan back to yiddishkeit only to visit the grave and find him a kohain)
but the " leniencies exist within the law" is another way of saying that
the judge will use their empathetic concerns (me-lev shel torah) to
determine which rules apply when - which is exactly what imho Judge
Sotomayor was referring to in her original statement.  Let's face it , the
judge is not always simply an umpire, especially in the secular system
where there is no ratzon hashem guideline.  In our system,imho	it's
expedient to overemphasize the "my hands are tied" aspect (so as to tie the
hands of those we don't accept)but imho if we are intellectually honest, we
must admit that (as R'YBS once said on a tape something like) the
flexibility that the baalei mesorah have is fairly wide
 , if they choose to use it (and I would add of course if we choose to accept them as baalei mesorah)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090814/2f616a89/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger asked:

> Now I realize that I was supposed to only express anger,
> not actually feel it. However, thinking about the
> situation, that seems wrong. There should be some kind of
> strong negative feeling in that circumstance. One can't
> be apathetic kalter-Litvakim when faced with injustice.
> So, if anger is not the appropriate emotion when dealing
> with injustice, particularly injustice meted out to others,
> what is?

Simple answer: Sympathy and rachmanus for the victim.

The tricky part is how to convey those feelings in a way that those around
you will both (a) pick up on it, and (b) be sufficiently motivated to act
on it. It's difficult, because sympathy and rachmanus are quiet and soft; I
have no idea how to do that in a loud way so that the others around you
would notice.

There's a famous story about the Chofetz Chaim an a bochur who was smoking
on Shabbos. The CC could have gotten angry, but instead he sat down with
the bochur and sadly wept for "Shabbos... Shabbos..." That mussar was very
effective, but it worked because they were in a one-on-one environment.
There was no guarantee that the bochur would *accept* the CC's words, but
there *was* a guarantee that he'd at least *hear* them.

I don't know how you could have gotten the attention of the others so that
they'd even hear you. Whatever you possibly might have said would have
gotten blank stares. I probably would have flown off the handle as you did.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click to get your online credit check report & score.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHBWhpSkQKZjVhQYbPvjuCtHdanj2SWQsgdtkwA5IzBJVAlG9JivO/

R' Yitzchok Levine asked:

> Just because someone is G-d fearing does not mean that he
> or she has extensive kashrus knowledge. Not all G-d
> fearing people have the same kashrus standards. How does
> one know what these are without investigating?

I understand that you would prefer not to eat there unless they have
"extensive kashrus knowledge." But I began to wonder -- is this really
required by halacha?

I happened to look at the Chochmas Adam 1:3, and I recommend that others
should at least skim over it. He provides a very interesting contrast
between the ikar halacha (which appears quite generous in presumptions of
who can be relied upon) and the situation "nowadays" (i.e. over 200 years
ago) -- when all sorts of seforim and publications are very easily easily
obtained. If I understood him correctly, he lists certain halachos which
would *not* have been required for a shochet to know in previous
generations, but if a shochet *today* doesn't know them (when they are so
easily learned), it suggests that this shochet is negligent to the point
that we should not rely on him.

To me, it does not seem like much of a stretch to extrapolate from his
description of what was expected of a shochet 200 years ago, to what we
should expect of a mashgiach today.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for the latest in magnetic therapy technology!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsD7NhlgrWz4g56dmD7l1IRf8BSqf0ZiHNzN3psXRzGlQrwVYNsNhe/

Michael Makovi
> If Rabbi Berkovits holds that midrash halakhah can be used to
> creatively by Hazal to effectively write a law out of existence, Rabbi
> Yehonatan, according to this interpretation, strenuously disagreed
> with such exegetical methods.

Two laws that are currently ignored come to mind

Burial of suicide - we consider all of them now as not having da'as

No hespedim on certain days
Except maybe some Yekkes and our own REMT, the no hesped rule is almost
always waved

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 


I understand that you would prefer not to eat there unless they have
"extensive kashrus knowledge." But I began to wonder -- is this really
required by halacha?

I happened to look at the Chochmas Adam 1:3, and I recommend that others
should at least skim over it. He provides a very interesting contrast
between the ikar halacha (which appears quite generous in presumptions of
who can be relied upon) and the situation "nowadays" (i.e. over 200 years
ago) -- when all sorts of seforim and publications are very easily easily
obtained. If I understood him correctly, he lists certain halachos which
would *not* have been required for a shochet to know in previous
generations, but if a shochet *today* doesn't know them (when they are so
easily learned), it suggests that this shochet is negligent to the point
that we should not rely on him.

To me, it does not seem like much of a stretch to extrapolate from his
description of what was expected of a shochet 200 years ago, to what we
should expect of a mashgiach today.

Akiva Miller

================================
That's certainly an interesting extrapolation, but based on what halachic
theory? (e.g. halachic norms are a function of the number of easily
available sources - where do we find this?  Or norms are based on the
relative resources the community has - an example of this might be havdala
on the kos, then not when the community was poor and then back again)

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

This requires a longer answer (maybe next week) but here are some rashei 
prakim.

My impression is that the Rambam removes anger from his normal scheme of 
the golden mean because of "kol hako'es k'ilu oved avoda zara" (see the 
enlightening essay by David Shatz called "Maimonides' Moral Theory" in 
The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, especially pp. 174-180, where he 
discusses how the Rambam deviates from the Aristotelian doctrine of the 
mean).  IOW when a typical person gets angry the what his gut is 
thinking "nothing is as I would wish it to be" (see The Collected 
Reprints from Sing Out! vol. 1 p. 30) rather than "nothing is as God 
would wish it to be".  If he saw himself as helping to execute God's 
plan his reaction would be more practical than a useless outburst.

Micha Berger wrote:
> So, if anger is not the appropriate emotion when dealing with injustice,
> particularly injustice meted out to others, what is? What is it I'm
> supposed to be feeling when expressing anger at those young 20-somethings
> who couldn't give up a seat for a woman in her third trimester?
>   
Indignation, followed by an internal "what can I do to change this?"
> 1- Is the yeitzer hatov defined as responding with thought, or as
> responding with the right middos?
>   
Here is where it gets complicated, since you are trying to harmonize 
different opinions in mussar.  For the Rambam the yetzer hara is the ego 
(see MN I:2).
> Related:
>
> The Gra in Even Sheleimah refers to sheviras hamiddos and fighting
> middos, without ever specifying middos ra'os in particular.
The Gra in Even Shleima essentially restates R Haim Vital's opinion in 
Sha'arei Kedusha Sha'ar 2.  RHV uses philosophical terminology to label 
kabbalistical concepts, which leads to a great deal of confusion.  You 
can glean his definition of yetzer tov and yetzer ra from Sha'ar 3, 
which, unfortunately, is written allegorically and which I, at least, 
find hard to decode.
>  Also, in
> Igeres haMussar (a/a/a Ohr Yisrael ch. 10), RYS opens "Haadam chafshi
> bedimyono, ve'asur bemuskalo." -- switching to translation for the rest
> for legibility -- "His unbridled imagination draws him misrchievously in
> the way of his heart's desire without yir'ah for the uncertain future --
> the time when Hashem will examine all his affairs."
>
> Both appear to be identifying the yeitzer hatov with seikhel.
>
> And yet, RYS also writes of tiqun hamiddah, changing the middah
> (typically through hergeil) into something positive.
There's a machlokes between Aristotle and Hume about whether the 
intellect controls the emotion, or visa versa.  I find RYS's writing 
provocative, but too 19th-century-Germanic-flowery to think I understand 
it, but I do think I understand the writings of his student, the Alter 
from Kelm.  For him the point of mussar is to change the Humesean human 
("ayir pere adam yulad") into an Aristotelian human.
> More starkly contrasting is REED's model of nequdas habechirah, in which
> he lauds moving the nequdah over to the point where good deeds need not
> require conscious thought. Better to not need seikhel to come to the
> right choice, be such that it happens preconsciously!
>   
Now you're mixing apples with oranges.  REED, as far as I recall, never 
mentions the nekudas habehira in the context of emotions.
> 2- Is the ideal, particularly WRT ka'as? Is it the Rambam's middah
> beinonis or the Orkhos Tzadiqim's case-by-case some middos are tavlin,
> good in small amounts, others are more like the basar? Or is it total
> eradication?
>
> The Rambam himself appears to take both sides. I explore this in
> <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/10/anger-and-the-golden-mean.shtml
> >.
> The Rambam, Hil Dei'os 1:4 introduces the concept of middah beinonis for
> each dei'ah, and gives ka'as as one of his examples. And yet in 2:3,
> the Rambam writes "veyeish dei'os she'asur lo le'adam linhog bahen
> beinonis... vekhein ka'as"!
>   
I've never studied Orhos Tzaddikim.  See David Shatz's essay, which I 
mentioned above, about the Rambam.
> And then I suggested a possible combination, that the chassid is bending
> over backward because he's the one working to fix the middah, training
> it like a vine on a trellis (to borrow a mashal from the Rambam).
>   
The problem with that is that even a tzaddik does that when he has a 
problem.  The answer I once gave, in an unpublished essay, is that a 
hassid goes out of his way to combat potential genetic and environmental 
influences, while a tzaddik does not.

David Riceman

> We also frequently revisit the question of archeology and whether it could
> change the text we should use in a seifer Torah. If we found something
> provably from Ezra's seifer Torah that differed on malei vechaseir,
> would we follow that text -- or do we continue defining "kosher" via rov?
>
> R' Micha

According to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman, "Hazon Ish on Textual
Criticism and Halakhah - A Rejoinder" (Tradition 19:4, Winter 1981),
responding to Zvi Yehuda, "Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and
Halakhah" (Tradition 18:2, Summer 1980), if we found Moshe Rabbenu's
Torah scroll, we WOULD change our Torah scrolls to match it. Professor
Leiman notes that Rambam himself altered his Torah scroll to match the
Aleppo Codex, so why wouldn't we change our Torah scrolls similarly if
we found Moshe's scroll?

Additionally, Professor Leiman disputes Zvi Yehuda's description of
the Hazon Ish. According to Yehuda, the Hazon Ish, as a matter of
philosophical principle, did not utilize new manuscripts, etc., since
we can only go by our mesorah. But according to Leiman, based on Hazon
Ish's writings, the Hazon Ish's position was very different. According
to Leiman, the Hazon Ish was simply skeptical of many new manuscripts,
since one cannot know who wrote it, whether it was considered
acceptable in its own time, etc. The Hazon Ish brings an example: if
the Munich manuscript is found today with a significantly different
girsa, how do we know that the Munich's girsa isn't the erroneous one,
and the Vilna's the correct? The Hazon Ish, according to Leiman, was
skeptical of manuscripts only because we often don't know who wrote
them or how reliable they were in their own time. But Leiman shows
that in a few select cases, where the Hazon Ish was sure of the
manuscript's veracity and reliability, he DID rely on the manuscript,
overturning the mesorah and accepting new discoveries instead of the
mesorah.

Michael Makovi

Another note: Lo ba-shamaim hi says we go by humans and not G-d. Where
in this principle do we learn that we go by mesorah and not new
textual discoveries? If we discover Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, relying on
it would be relying on humans, not on G-d. Lo ba-shamaim hi means only
that we don't rely on supernatural revelation, etc., but unearthing
new manuscripts is quite temporal and mundane!

Michael Makovi

Michael Makovi:
> If we discover Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, relying on
> it would be relying on humans, not on G-d. Lo ba-shamaim hi means only
> that we don't rely on supernatural revelation, etc., but unearthing
> new manuscripts is quite temporal and mundane!

My former LOR Rabbi Kanarfogel and I chatted on this

Any change must be halachic

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


"No manuscript triggers change"

OTOH if a Poseiq says an emendation is in order - he could definitely
say so based upon a new-found manuscript.

And a scientist could not make that same call halachically-speaking

+++++++++++++++

I don't know about the reliability of this story but..
Finding The Chofetz Chaim's 3 oz. Becher AFAIK did not change shiurim
re: Revi'is

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RDR:
> There's a machlokes between Aristotle and Hume about whether the
> intellect controls the emotion, or visa versa. "

According to Albert Ellis of Rational Emotive Therapy (RET)

And
Aaron Beck and David Burns of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

An intervening thought always precedes an emotion.

Illustration: a man from Mars sees an injustice - a man drugs another man and slices his arm off.

As the martian is about to play Pinchas he is informed that this is normal
and that the surgeon is amputating the arm in order to protect the life of
his patient.

The butchery perceived by said martian has been "reframed" to see benevolence instead of violence.

Thus proper wisdom and attitude is key.  Part of this includes a shakla v'tarya to dispute irrational thoughts

Rabbi Zelig Pliskin refers to this stuff, and I suspect Rabbi A Twersky does, too.

The practice requires discipline, introspection and a mentor-therapist of a good chavrusa

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




Micha:
> The Orchos Tzadiqim
> makes a point of showing where each middah has a positive use, some are
> constructive more often than others, bet every middah is assigned some
> context in which it's positive.

WADR to Orchos Tzaddiqim If I'm not mistaken - Qoheles beat him to the
punch by several Millenia! :-)

Mussar Heskel?  Mishlei, Iyyov, Qoheles etc. Are chockful of "machshava"

+++++++++++++++

FWIW Orchos Tzaddiqim was IIRC my first mussar sefer and it is IMHO
probably THE best for a typical novice.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[Alan Morinis found the same among his student population. -micha]

--i was taught in cheder that 2 things that are in the torah (besides the episode of the meraglim) are actually bidieved in Hashem's eyes....
1. having a melech over yisrael (like the goyim do)...since in reality, hashem is the only king we have..
2. (see reference below from yhirmiyahu) regarding the avodah of the
korbanos....rambam says one thing (iirc, that it was a concession to the
yidden, in their desire to copy the ways of the goyim), and the ramban, who
says that no, there are some spiritual benefits to having the korbanos.....
the episode of r. yehudah hanasi speaking harshly to the goat? saying "this
[being a korban] is what you were created for" would seem to shtim with the
shita of the ramban' or not necessarily so?????......any thoughts???
from
 machon-mamre....yirmiyahu hanavi: 7:22-23.....

22?For I spoke not unto your
 fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;????????
 ???-???-???????? ?????? ????????? ????? ??????, ??????? ???????--?????????
 ????? ?????????, ??????? ???????-??? ?????; ????????????, ??????-?????????
 ?????? ???????? ???????, ???????, ????? ?????.23?but this thing I
 commanded them, saying: 'Hearken unto My voice, and I will be your God,
 and ye shall be My people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you,
 that it may be well with you.'

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090817/9def876f/attachment-0001.htm>

the following is the text from machon-mamre.....the obvious text of the
novi is that the voice.....kol sasson, vkol simcha, will be ceased, and the
land desolate......why start off a wedding (sheva brachos) off with a klala
like that???
33?And the carcasses of this people shall be food for the fowls of the
heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall frighten them
away.?????????????????? ??????? ????????, ?????????? ????????????, ????
???????? ?????? ????????, ???? ????? ?????? ???????:? ???? ??????????,
???????? ???????.34?Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah,
and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth and the voice of
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for the
land shall be desolate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090817/c445915f/attachment-0001.htm>

> RHB: the obvious text of the novi is that the voice.....kol sasson,
> vkol simcha, will be ceased, and the land desolate......why start off
> a wedding (sheva brachos) off with a klala like that???
Yirmiyahu 7:34 Then will I cause to cease from the cities of Judah,
and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth and the voice of
gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride; for
the land shall be desolate.

Yirmiyahu himself turns the prophecy of destruction into a promise of
nechama - see 33:10-11

Thus saith the LORD: ***Yet again there shall be heard*** in this
place, whereof ye say: It is waste, without man and without beast,
even ***in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem***,
that are desolate, without man and without inhabitant and without
beast, ***the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the
bridegroom and the voice of the bride***, the voice of them that say:
'Give thanks to the LORD of hosts, for the LORD is good, for His mercy
endureth for ever', even of them that bring offerings of thanksgiving
into the house of the LORD. For I will cause the captivity of the land
to return as at the first, saith the LORD.

- Ilana

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:12pm IDT, Michael Makovi wrote:
: According to Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman, "Hazon Ish on Textual
: Criticism and Halakhah - A Rejoinder" (Tradition 19:4, Winter 1981),
: responding to Zvi Yehuda, "Hazon Ish on Textual Criticism and
: Halakhah" (Tradition 18:2, Summer 1980), if we found Moshe Rabbenu's
: Torah scroll, we WOULD change our Torah scrolls to match it. Professor
: Leiman notes that Rambam himself altered his Torah scroll to match the
: Aleppo Codex, so why wouldn't we change our Torah scrolls similarly if
: we found Moshe's scroll?

(There is a good reason why we "err" on the side of putting "R" for Rav,
or if need be "Reb" before every name. RSZL is a musmach, and speaking as
someone who grew up in the same shtiebl he attends, quite the lamdan in
the more classical talmud Torah sense. It's an interesting shteibl that
had in those days a number of "Rabbi Dr"s. E.g. that's also how I know
R"D David Berger, whose YK mussaf still defines the experience for me. I
don't think that RSZL's success at a different endeavor should detract
from our acknowledging his competence benidon didan. I personally am
uncomfortable seeing a talmid chakham called with just the honorific
"Prof". I presume someone else might be upset that I'm about to drop
his professorship for the test of this post; but such is my assessment
about which "bemoso yiqakh ... yeileikh acharav...")

BTW, if you have a subscription, RZY's article can be found at
<http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104187> and RSZL's
rejoinder at <http://www.traditiononline.org/news/article.cfm?id=104250>.

Before I answer this question, though, I want to jump ahead to one
RMM adds in a "PS" email. On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 2:16pm IDT, Michael
Makovi wrote:
: Another note: Lo ba-shamaim hi says we go by humans and not G-d. Where
: in this principle do we learn that we go by mesorah and not new
: textual discoveries? If we discover Moshe Rabbenu's scroll, relying on
: it would be relying on humans, not on G-d. Lo ba-shamaim hi means only
: that we don't rely on supernatural revelation, etc., but unearthing
: new manuscripts is quite temporal and mundane!

The question, as I see it, is what is pesaq on a deOraisa? Is it the
determination of truth, or authoritative legal process? Along these
lines is the question of what "eilu va'eilu divrei Elokim Chaim" means,
and how it interacts with "lo bashamayim hi" (since "eilu va'eilu"
was itself said min haShamayim).

If it's about finding the true Will of G-d, then the story of the tanur
shel achnai and lo bashamayim hi can't be taken naively. After all,
what better indicator of the Truth than what He Himself tells us, and
thus possible justification could there be for a kelal to ignore His Word?

Thus, I think the two conversation are linked because assigning authority
to MRAH's seifer Torah over following rov reflects the notion that
there is One True Ratzon haBorei, and rov is simply a birur when we
can't get at it. OTOH, if Ratzon haBorei is "follow halachic process"
and not either particular pesaq to the exclusion of the other, then we
follow rov when it comes to the tanur, despite nissim, and we follow
rov sifrei Torah despite archeology.

These two approaches to what is pesaq is old. I would argue it's a
machloqes Rashi and the Rambam, and follows down to today, between
RMF's explaination of "eilu va'eilu" in the introduction to the IM and
both RYBS's and R' Velvel's explanations of RCBrisker's derekh (that he
rejected Radziner techeiles on the grounds that science can't take the
place of mesorah).

: Additionally, Professor Leiman disputes Zvi Yehuda's description of
: the Hazon Ish...

The debate between RSZL and RZY has two parts: First, what would "the
rishonim say", including the earlier acharonim. There, as I wrote above,
I believe both shitos exist. I don't think either of them listing those
that agree with their perception of the CI's shitah is particularly
convincing, because I didn't enter the discussion assuming consensus.

The second is which side did CI himself take? In general, the CI is a
"pesaq is correct by assigned authority" approach. Which is why a pesaq
made during the 2 millenia of Torah (ie before the codification of the
mishnah) based on bad science is no leshitaso subject to change just
because we now know the assumptions were faulty.

And in fact, I didn't find RSZL's counter-argument convincing. Eg. his
example of the CI being willing to amending texts isn't based on finding
new manuscripts but on response to girsaos found in equally authoritative
sources, or the power of sevara from those sources. Not didon didan --
using new information from outside the mesorah.

I would simply conclude that I don't know what the CI said, given these
two vastly different takes. A talmid is both more likely to know the
rebbe's intent and more likely to forget where that intent ends and one's
adaptation begins. However, I do believe it's easily demonstrable that
both shitos are as old as the rishonim.

Which is why, in my previous post, I tied the current conversation to
earlier ones about finding Ezra's seifer Torah without stating an implied
conclusion from that linkage.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 168
***************************************

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..."