Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 146

Thu, 22 Jul 2010

• 1. Re: kosher cabbage (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: minhagei 9 av (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: sevara vs. psak (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: [Areivim] kosher cabbage (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Al Haaretz v'Al Peiroteha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 7. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: minhagei 9 av (Akiva Blum)
• 9. Mitzva or Hechsher Mitzva (Danny Schoemann)
• 10. Re: mitzvos with no bracha [was: kosher cabbage] (T6...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Tzedaka & middot Q (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: ee itmar hachi itmar (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: minhagei 9 av (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The shape of the Menorah of the Temple (Zev Sero)

[I have to stop editing posts now... This makes moderation take too
long. Please remember to trim quotes. And if possible, when replying,
please hold onto your replies until you reach the end of the thread and
send one long (hopefully cohesive) post. -micha]

RZS wrote:
> AFAIK terumos and maasros are *never* taken from exported produce.
>  Thus this isn't even demai, it's vadai tevel.

Correct. A few years ago, after hearing the opposite claim one too
many times, I contacted teh Export Department of the Chief Rabbinate
of Israel, and was told that there is no doubt that no TuM was taken,
thus the stuff is vadai tevel. I checked w

[??? -micha]

> Maybe there's enough of a
> safek to make it advisable not to say a bracha (e.g. maybe the farmer
> who grew it was frum, and fixed it before he sold it to the wholesaler so as
> not to be machshil people).

I do not know how likely the scenario you paint is, but AFAIU, the reason
why we don't make a blessing is in deference to the view of the Bach,
who holds that exported Israeli produce loses its sanctity and is no
longer subject to TuM. So may be there is no mitzvah, or may be we failed
to make the blessing. Since safek berakhot lequla, we have no issue with
doing the mitzva yet skipping the blessing given the Bach's view.

[Email #2. -micha]

RBW wrote:
> I was once at a knesses on the subject and a senior kashrut supervisor
> stated that the rabbinate tries to take ma'aser on everything going out,
> but for reasons which he didn't explain, it isn't always done. Therefore
> any buying Israeli fruit should take ma'aser, but it is only a safek.

Since the above contradicts what the head of teh Export Department of
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel told me, I take it we have a hakkhasha
between two eid e'had (how do we pluralize that?).

Hadra sfeiqa ledukhtei.

Kind regards,
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany (appears Jul. 26)
* Kann Gtt eine Rolle in Unterhaltungsliteratur spielen? (ab 23.07)
* If You Work With Garbage, You Will Get Dirty
* Cows moo-ve over: camel milk coming to Europe
* Scharfe Analyse der Gaza-Flotte auf ARD
* The New Face of Jewish Studitainment
* Should Humanity Call it Quits

R' Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:

> Most chassidim do make siyumim during the 9 days if possible in
> order to eat meat and drink wine and lessen the spirit of mourning

I understand that some people have strong taavos, and want to eat meat.

I do NOT understand why ANYone would feel justified in lessening the spirit of mourning (except for unusually rare cases of depression and such).

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
SHOCKING: 13" Macbook Pro for $91.72!
SPECIAL REPORT: Macbooks are being auctioned for an incredible 85% off!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c47849c3c0f6360389st03vuc

Me:

>A naive reading of the gemara indicates that it does mean the
>  majority of sevaros. See Sanhedrin 34a; the drasha doesn't indicate
>  any restriction to dinei nefashos, and see Ramabm H. Sanhedrin 10:5.

RMB:
<<I think you meant to say the sevara that received the majority
of dayanim. (As opposed to the pesaq that had the most supporting
sevaros.) To me (after loojing at the Shakh) it looked like a third
possibility...

The pesaq and sevara combined have to get a majority, not either alone.
E.g. Two people who believe X, but one is machmir and the other also
believes in mitigating factor Y and is meiqil would not count together
as two votes for X.>>

We need to back up a minute.  Hazal are talking about psukim (actually
phrases or even words or letters).  The naive reading of the gemara is that
any Rabbi can cite only one pasuk as his reason, and in order for the
defendant to be found guilty there must be 13 different psukim cited by
Rabbis in the court of size 23.

I am making the assumption (rampant in Hazal) that the Bible is
parsimonious: no two psukim repeat the same concept.  I am also making the
assumption that psukim, even though they are expressed as case law, use
case law to represent legal concepts (sevaros).

So, no.  Given those assumptions (and ignoring the Shach momentarily) a court can condemn a murderer only by using 13 different sevaros.

<<I noted from the Shakh that the Rambam's shitah may be related to his
believe that pesaq is about finding emes. As he puts it, how can you
count both if one of them is certainly wrong?>>

I think that follows from my two assumptions above, though they in turn may
be related to finding emes in Torah.  Where, by the way, does the Rambam
assert this principle? I'm unfamiliar with it.

<<Last, we're assuming that a rule WRT giving a particlar person a
particular onesh would apply to voting to resolve a machloqes in setting
the law.>>

I alluded to this issue in my previous post.  The gemara and the Rambam
cite this law in the context of capital punishment.  The gemara's source,
however, is a drasha from a pasuk which has no obvious connection to
capital crime, and the Shach's objection is in a siman about general
hora'ah.  I don't know of anyone who discusses whether battei din (or the
Sanhedrin in particular) used different methodology for case law and
general legal disputes.  If you know of one I'd be pleased to see it.  In
the case of edicts see H. Mamrim 2:6, which may produce fruitful
generalizations.

<<People reach conclusions from a multiplicity of reasons. And sometimes it's
80% this and 20% that. For that matter, there are times when the dayan will
consciously think it's primarily one factor, but his emotions were really
swayed by the other. That is why I don't think the counting of who
believes which sevara is really doable.>>

But at least in the case of capital crimes Hazal deliberately required
single sevaros.  It's true that contemporary tshuvos often don't read that
way, but certainly the Rambam's and the Rashba's tshuvos generally do.	I
suspect if it were expected it would suddenly become a lot easier to do.

<<Then you are saying you agree with the Shakh's reading?>>

I think precedent is with him and pshat is against him.

David Riceman

REMT and RZS are arguing on Areivim about the Ibn Ezra's position WRT the shape
of the arms of the menorah.

REMT quoted the IE, which I found at Shemos 25:37, in what Bar Ilan calls the short
version of the IE:
    Neiroseha: And the qadmonim said that one lamp was in the middle
    ve"hashisha ne'erachim ze achar ze bachatzi iggul" (to cut-n-paste from REMT's
    post)
    And after the scripture said "vehei'ir al eiver paneha", and the reason for "al
    eiver" one [eiver], behold the shape is clear.

The IE appaers to very explicitly places all the lamps on the same side
of the middle one. Similarly, in the long version of the IE, Shemos 27:21:
    Yaarokh: baavur hayos haneiros bechatzi igul. Ve'od adaber al zeh.
seems to refer to the placement of the neiros, not the shape of the qanim.
If anyone knows where else the IE discusses it after ch 27, please clue
me in.

HOWEVER, that's not exclusive to the arms ALSO being curved. Here, see the
long version, 27:32:
    Veshishah: ta'am qanim. Agulim, arukhim, chalulim.

So, I would agree with REMT's masqanah, but RZS's understanding of that
particular IE.

Tir'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

R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:

> I might be remembering incorrectly, but I think I just saw in the
> Piskei Chazon Ish (which can be found at the back of some Kitzur
> Shulchan Aruchs [Or is it Kitzurei Shulchan Aruch?]) that any food
> from EY is chayav in all T/M/Orlah etc. even if the fruit itself
> is outside the land currently.

This is [almost - see below] correct, even if it was grown specifically for
export. You are probably referring to the KSA supplement written by Rav
Kalman Kahana; this is in section 2:17 there. And another sefer I have
gives the source as Chazon Ish Demai 15:4 and Shviis 2:2.

Technically, it is important to know that the halachos of Terumos and
Maasros are chal NOT when the produce is grown, but at a specific point in
the processing called "miruach", which might best be translated as
"completion of the harvesting". This varies according to the type of food;
for grain, which is cut and made into a pile, this occurs when the pile is
neatened and smoothened (which is the literal meaning of the word). (See,
for example, Rambam Hilchos Maaser 3:13) This is rarely of any practical
consequence, because the miruach almost always occurs near the place where
the food was grown. 

However, in the rare case where food was grown in Chutz Laaretz and had its
miruach (or its "kviyus", which has the same effect) within Eretz Yisrael,
Trumah and Maaser must be taken. (Mechaber YD 331:12) And if food was grown
in Eretz Yisrael and had its miruach in Chutz Laaretz, Trumah and Maaser do
NOT need to be taken. (Igros Moshe YD 2:144)

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> I, OTOH, believe it would be a mitzvah derabbanan of removing
> demai, and thus require a berakhah.

There is no demai today. Demai existed when most Amei Haaretz could be
relied upon to take Terumah Gedolah, but not the other portions. What we
have is Safek Tevel; either everything was done properly, or nothing was
done properly. (The Shoneh Halachos 261:7 quotes this in the name of Chazon
Ish Demai 15:4.)

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:
> And how is one supposed to know with certainty anything about
> the status of fruits and vegetables that are exported to the US?

By asking the experts. The OU, at http://www.oukosher.org/index.php/common/article/separating_terumah/
writes:

> Many people mistakenly believe that the Chief Rabbinate of
> Israel separates terumah and ma?aser from all produce exported
> to America. Our office clarified this matter with the Rabbanut
> and, regrettably, this is presently not the case.
> ...
> No blessing is recited because of the possibility (though remote)
> that terumah and ma? aser were separated in Israel.

R' Yitzchok Levine wrote:

> My point was that if teruma was already taken, then separating
> teruma a second time does not seem to me to be a mitzva. Thus,
> in those cases where one is in doubt and teruma was indeed already
> taken, it seems to me that one has not done any sort of mitzvah by
> separating teruma a second time.
> Thus, if one buys Israeli produce that is exported to America, it
> seems that one should not make a bracha and that one may not even
> fulfill a mitzva by taking teruma without making a bracha, since
> teruma may already have been taken.

The matter seems identical to where I already took my lulav and esrog, and
then I realized that one of the minim *may* have been pasul, so I obtain a
vadai kosher one, and shake again. Do I say a bracha? Certainly not. Was it
a mitzvah? Well, on the first day, one could argue that it constitutes a
mitzvah of Safek D'Oraisa L'Chumra. And even on Chol Hamoed, it is
certainly a good idea, even if it is admittedly Safek Not A Mitzvah.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Free Credit Score
A bad credit score is below 598. Click here to see yours for $0. Checking won't affect your score. By Experian&#174
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c479b1c22842377b51st04vuc

In the thread "kosher cabbage", R' Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> ... the psak I saw (in the shulchan aruch not the KSA) stated
> that for fruits grown in EY, when saying Al HaEtz afterwards
> you should say "Al Haaretz v'Al Peiroteha" regardless of where
> they are being eaten.

R' Zev Sero responded:
> And when drinking Israeli wine. ... But not when eating Israeli
> baked goods, because most wheat in Israel is imported.

In other words, for Israeli wine, the bracha ends "v'al p'ri gafnah",
but the bracha for baked goods does *not* end "v'al michyasah".

Now let's look it up...

In Orach Chayim, the Mechaber 208:10 says to say "peiroseha" after
Israeli fruit. Magen Avraham 16, Beer Hetev 14, Mishneh Berurah 51-54,
and Aruch Hashulchan 6 all give various comments on this, but *none*
of them extend this to wine or to baked goods.

Why is this? One possibility is that they were distracted by a different
question, that of how the standard bracha after wine should end. (See
all the nosei keilim on both 208:10 and 208:11 for more on that.) But
regardless, why didn't they mention baked goods?

Baked goods are indeed mentioned in Kaf Hachayim 208:58, where he says
that the minhag is to use all three of these: "... and in Al Hamichya,
the minhag is ["nohagin"] to end with Baruch Atah Hashem Al Haaretz V'al
Michyatah... and so ["v'chayn"] in the bracha on fruit the minhag is
["nohagin"] to say V'nodeh L'cha Al Haaretz V'al Peirotehah. And in the
bracha on wine V'nodeh L'cha Al Haaretz V'al Pri Gafnah..."

So who are we following? The several poskim who mention only fruit,
or the one who says all three? I understand that it is true today that
"most wheat in Israel is imported", but I doubt whether it was so 100
or 200 or 500 years ago. I suspect that we all follow the Kaf Hachayim,
except that today we lack the *opporetunity* to make all three changes.

I would like to suggest that RSZ is correct, and his reason is correct,
but I fear that many people may misunderstand. If the agricultural
and economic reality changes, and at some point in the future most of
Israel's flour is domestic and not imported, then the proper thing will
indeed be to say "Al Haaretz V'al Michyasah" on cake which he knows to
be made of Israeli flour. (And, I suppose, "Al Haaretz V'al Mezonosehah"
in Birkas Hamazon after Israeli bread.)

When that day comes, and I hope it will be soon, I fear that many people
will not know about this Kaf Hachayim, and mistakenly think that there
was some sort of gezera against that text, when in fact "michyasah"
is no more wrong than "gafnah" is.

I just noticed that Rav Moshe Feinstein discusses the question of
changing the bracha, both for cake and bread made of Israeli wheat,
in Igros Moshe YD 3:129:4. He paskens against it, but I'd rather not
quote him, because I do not understand how he reaches that conclusion,
unless he also opposes saying Gafnah after Israeli wine.

Akiva Miller

Micha Berger wrote:

> HOWEVER, that's not exclusive to the arms ALSO being curved. Here, see the
> long version, 27:32:
>     Veshishah: ta'am qanim. Agulim, arukhim, chalulim.

In a word, pipe-shaped.  Round, long, and hollow.  That is, round
in *cross-section*, not curved.  He's translating the word "kaneh",
or rather explaining which aspects of a reed were replicated in
these "kanim".  This actually indicates, if only indirectly, that
they were *not* curved, since a pipe/reed is straight.  OTOH a reed
can bend in the wind, so it wouldn't do to completely rule out a
curved shape.  But there's no indication that the IE had such a shape
in mind.


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

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 9:42 PM

> justified the frequent use of siyumim to
> offer fleishig dinners. After all, he said, what can better heal the
> damage of sin'as chinam than people joining together to 
> celebrate another
> Jew's completion of a seifer?
> 

Seuda hamesfekes must be eaten sitting alone. Apparently the atmosphere we wish
to create is not one of comradery.

Akiva

From a discussion on Areivim as to whether one should go to the
trouble of buying Tevel so as to fulfill the Mitzvah of taking
Terumoth and Ma'asroth.

> Do you kosher your own meat and poultry?  I certainly do not,
> yet it is a mitzva.

No it's not - and there's no Brocho when doing so. It's forbidden to
eat blood, so you somehow have to remove it from the meat before
eating it.
Maybe it's a Hechsher Mitzva.

> According to your logic one should become familiar with
> doing this so that one can do the mitzvah.

I still remember my Mom doing it 35 years ago in Johannesburg - and
I've studied the Halachos since it comes up every time I read through
the Kitzur (Siman 36), and I believe that all Jews should know how to
do it since it's the subject of a Siman in Shulchan Oruch.

> Most people do not make their own tzitzis. Again a mitzvah, I presume.

Again, a Hechsher Mitzva, if you're referring to tying them.
Again, all males should know how to do this, as above.

As to making the thread L'Shem Mitzvas Tzitzith; I don't know if it's
a Hechsher Mitzva; it's rather removed from the Mitzva.

I'm also unsure about the status of baking Matzos.

Building a Suka is interesting since making it pretty is "Ze Keli
V'anveihu" so spending time on the finishing touches may be a Mitzva.


> They do not write the parshios in their tefillin. A Mitzva, no?

No - Hechsher Mitzva.
Yes, all male Jews should learn Hilchos Safrus; the Kitzur wrote a
separate Sefer on it.

Writing a Sefer Torah is a Mitzva - yet people seem to prefer to
outsource it, if they do it at all. And even then they do it "in
memory of" and donate it to a shul, and risk missing the Mitzva.

Seems that Hechsher Mitzva is a rather large area; I wouldn't be
surprised if people have written books about it.

- Danny

 

From: "Prof. Levine" _Larry.Levine@stevens.edu_ 
(mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu) 

>>  I really do not know about kashering meat, but there are mitzvos that 
one  does not make a bracha on. Tzadakah is one comes to 
mind.  Hachnosos  Orchim is another mitzva that one does not make a 
bracha on. I am sure that  there are others that people can come up with.

Indeed, I would be  interested in a list of mitzvos that have no 
bracha associated with  them.<<


YL

 
 
>>>>
I don't think it's an exhaustive list, but there is a list you say every  
morning in Shacharis:
 
"Elu hadevarim she'ein lahem shiur: hape'ah vehabikurim veharei'ayon  
ugemilus chasadim... " IIANM you don't make a bracha for any of those.  
 
 
It goes on: "...vehakeren kayemes lo le'olam haba...kibud av ve'em,  
ugemilus chasadim, vehashkamas bais hamidrash Shacharis ve'Arvis [there are  
brachos that are part of Shacharis and Ma'ariv but for the mitzva of "getting to  
shul early" there is no specific bracha], vehachnasas orchim, uvikur 
cholim,  vehachnasas kallah vehalva'yas hameis [related:  I'm on the chevra 
kadisha  and we don't make a bracha when we do a tahara even though it is 
obviously a  mitzva] ve'iyun tefillah vehava'as sholom bein adam lachaveiro vesalmud 
 Torah...."  Well, OK you make birchos haTorah once a day but not every 
time  you sit down to learn.
 
As I said, this is not an exhaustive list but it suggests one criterion for 
 mitzvos that generally don't have a bracha:  they have no set shiur, no  
particular time or amount that must be done (e.g., bikur cholim).
 
 

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

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100722/a55dffd3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:19:14PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
::: Are you saying that  there's no real suffering going on?

:: Exactly, because an animal doesn't  have a ruach, and therefore there is
:: no one to suffer. There is stimulus and  response, with no awareness or
:: bechirah in between. IOW, I am saying that  Skinner and all the other
:: Radical Behaviorists were totally off in explaining  the human metzi'us,
:: but their kind of analysis does yield a complete  description of animals.

: I don't believe that's true and I don't believe that Skinner's 
: "explanations" actually explain any vertebrate behavior, certainly
: not mammals'.

: I enter into evidence the following two exhibits:
: a.  Bilaam's donkey

Which was created separately from every other animal.

: b. The calf who ran away because it didn't want to be shechted and the  
: tanna said, "You have to go and be shechted because lekach notzarta."  (and  
: then -- if I am not confusing two different stories -- he suffered terribly  
: himself because of his lack of compassion for his animal, until he told the 
: maid  to be nice and not sweep away his chipmunks or squirrels or kittens or  
: something)

That tanna was Rebbe (the story was already mentioned in this thread). He
suffered from a toothache until he told the exterminator not to get rid
of the rats.

Still, where do you see that the calf was aware of its own thoughts in
this story?

:                                                   But it is  indisputable 
: that they suffer physical pain, and the notion that they don't  suffer 
: because there is no "I" there is just wrong.  

Then what do you do with my objections:

1- If the inputs to animal thought include the watching of the thoughts
themselves, wouldn't that mean they have free will? And isn't free will
the tzelem E-lokim (see the Meshekh Chokhmah).

What gives us bechirah is that we can actually make decisions to change
or thinking, and this is because our thoughts are themselves subject to
self-observation and consideration. Animals have no bechirah, and thus
have no ability to think about their thinking.

Thus, to say an animal has an "I" that is aware of the pain raises problems
in how one explains Bereishis 1:26-27, and 2:7.

2- The part of the brain whichm, when damaged, prevents this ability in
people is a set of advanced cortical areas in the prefrontal cortex,
perhaps in concert with the temporal lobes, others suggest with
interaction with the centromedial thelamus. This is also known through
studies of blindsight -- people who aren't aware of being able to see,
yet know things about their surroundings.

Anyway, not even among the higher apes does any animal have the relevent
brain structures.

The US National Academy of the Sciences Instiute for Animal Laboratory
Research did studies in 2009 (ILAR 2009). They didn't find any evidence
for self-awarness (in this sense of the phrase; I don't mean a dog that
treats its own reflection differently than that of other dogs).

So the notion of self-aware animals would pose both hashkafic and
scientific questions. I might be overstating it when I say that Skinner's
description of pain as simply a stimulus that makes an avoidance response
more likely applies to animals, perhaps Skinner plus some computer
algorithm allowing for storage of state and more complex causality. If
you can think an alternative to meta-coginizance (awareness of one's
awareness) other than radical behaviorism, I'll consider the merits of
that possibility. I couldn't think of one.

There could be a middle ground held by mammals, which have an anterior
cingulate cortex, which since Price's work in 2000, is believed to tie
physical pain (nociception) to emotions (pain); at least it creates the
same chemical responses. But still, no "I" is aware of those emotions
(suffering).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:16:32PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: T'rumos and ma'asros are _not_ tzedaka. They are the price a grower
: pays for having land on which to grow...

Back in 1998, I noticed an interesting diyuq halashon in the Chinukh
and posted it here (v2n80). It is in agreement with REMT's reisha, but
gives a more specific answer than the seifa. Since it has been a while,
here is an (edited) reprint:

It's interesting to contrast the Chinukh on ma'aser (mitzvah #395)
with his description of terumah (#507).

Terumah is about testifying that "ha'olam kulo liHKBH". This is why,
the Chinukh explains, there is no shi'ur (mid'Oraisa) for terumah. It's
the act of giving that is required.

Ma'aser is about supporting Leviim, so that they have no concerns other
than serving their King. And therefore maaser does have a significant
quantity.

I would also use this to explain why leviim can be mochelim their maaser,
but a kohein can not mocheil terumah. Terumah isn't the kohein's,
he's eating "mishulchan gavoha". Besides, the man has a need to give,
regardless of the kohein's need to receive.

Similarly, we can suggest that terumah is given before ma'aser because it
serves a similar role to b'rachos. Until we acknowledge HKBH's role in
creating the crop, it is not ours to give to Leviim.

: As for actual tzedaka, in Talmudic times it was not "your money and you
: voluntarily give it to beneficiaries whom you consider worthy." It was
: collected by gabbaim from each city resident according to his means,
: and distributed by gabbaim to each poor person according to his needs.
: Of course, many gave to individuals over and above their assessment,
: but the basic system was far from the opposite of socialism.

So where does the Torah stand on the subject of capitalism vs socialism?
Some point in between, or more interested in showing us how to do whichever
economic system we choose biqdushah?

Tir'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

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 07:50:41PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am now learning a sugya in shabbat (44) and twice in a row the
: gemara quotes an amora
: and then says it is impossible because of a beraita and then rephrases
: the amora
: "ee itmar hachi itmar"
: literally if he indeed said something this is what he said
: 
: To me it sounds like their was a mesorah which turned out to be wrong.

That's my understanding. That they didn't take it for granted that
maamarim reached Bavel intact, and if something didn't make sense,
it was considered indication that perhaps it was repeated incorrectly.

I pay attention to the issue as I'm learning Y-mi. There was not one
instance (that I noticed) in Berakhos or Demai of a question being
answered by redefining the quoted maamar -- whether beraisa, tosefta,
or even the retelling of a maaseh rav. The Y-mi would tend to just leave
the question open, and move on to another topic. No "teiqu" or the like
to tell you the sugya is over -- just ending the sugya with a question.

I saw a few cases in Kelayim. In general, I saw more Bavli-like style
in Kelayim in other ways too, like a couple of times "mai ta'ama" was
answered with a sevara, rather than the Y-mi norm of taking it as a
request for a pasuq. But even those cases in Kelayim where they
change the context of a pesaq from the one it was originally repeated
with, I was able to find ways to explain it as something less than
a full reinterpretation -- it's not so clearcut.

But in any case, there is pretty solid agreement about the basic rules
of thumb / tendencies:

The Y-mi is built upon quotes, stories of past practice and word of
mouth. The Bavli had less confidence in their word of mouth (both mimetic
and codified law, oral textualism), and so relied more on logic.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:28:36PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> HOWEVER, that's not exclusive to the arms ALSO being curved. Here, see the
>> long version, [25]:32:
>>     Veshishah: ta'am qanim. Agulim, arukhim, chalulim.
>
> In a word, pipe-shaped.  Round, long, and hollow.  That is, round
> in *cross-section*, not curved.  He's translating the word "kaneh",
> or rather explaining which aspects of a reed were replicated in
> these "kanim"....

Except that places description of the cross-section on either side of
mention of the length. I read "curved and long hollow things".
And actually, given the IE's placement of the arms, "qaneh" is more
arguably a nest, as per Mishlei 27:8, which would also explain the
bowl in Zekhariah's nevu'ah (4:2). And the IE could be thinking
of Zekhariah, whose nevu'ah calls the branches "muzaqos" (pipes).

Nowever, naniach your way, which fits Yeshaiah 19:6 and 42:3 (which
mentions both qaneh and a wick (!)), my problems are resolvable
according to the IE.

The fact that the IE says they're hollow would resolve my metallurgical
problem. (Although I don't know if Rashi and R' Avraham ben haRambam,
the two explicit "diagonalers", would agree they were hollow.)

The fact that he's describing the mishkan, whereas the archeology is
all late bayis sheini (or beyond), could answer my archeological
question.

If the menorah is kosher either way (and the text of the Yad doesn't
codify anything either way, just "nimshachim ve'olim", as per the beraisa
Melekhes haMishqan 10 and Menachos 28a), the mishkan's menorah could
have had long diagonal arms even while that in bayis sheini happened to
have curved ones.

As for the value of semicircular (albeit not the more stable
parabolic) arms:
Maaseh Chosheiv (ch 7) makes a point of having something that looks like
galgalei haraqi'ah, based on the parallel made between the neiros and
the kokhvei lekhes in the beraisa in Middos (see also Yalqut, Pequdei
419b).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:43:56AM +0300, Akiva Blum wrote:
: > justified the frequent use of siyumim to
: > offer fleishig dinners. After all, he said, what can better heal the
: > damage of sin'as chinam than people joining together to 
: > celebrate another Jew's completion of a seifer?

: Seuda hamesfekes must be eaten sitting alone. Apparently the atmosphere
: we wish to create is not one of comradery.

Or in twos. The desire is to avoid a machloqes whether three who sit
together for se'udah hamafseqes should make a zimun or not. See SA OC
552:8.

The Tur gives a different reason besheim the Rosh, that it's to promote
thinking about the churban rather than chatting. The BY quotes Rabbeinu
Meshulam who invokes "yeisheiv badad viyidom".
Pretty much what RAB wrote. But:

1) That's bedavqa for the ShM because it's the ShM and part of the
aveilus, so it doesn't contradict RMMonk's thought (caveat: as I remember
it 30 years later), and

(2) We don't hold like the Rosh's shitah which would imply bedavqa being
alone, we hold like the SA in possibly sitting with one more male.

(Questions about women and zimun and what it means for ShM left as an
excercise to the reader. <grin>)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

Micha Berger wrote:

> The fact that the IE says they're hollow would resolve my metallurgical
> problem. (Although I don't know if Rashi and R' Avraham ben haRambam,
> the two explicit "diagonalers", would agree they were hollow.)

They don't say.  Although a strong argument against hollow is that it
would be difficult to do that while hammering the whole thing out of
one block of gold.  The reason the IE says they're hollow is because
he's focusing on the word "kaneh", and translating it for us.  He's
telling us what are the essential properties of a reed, so that a
metal object having these same qualities would also be called one.
The Rambam is not a pashtan, so doesn't have to deal with the word
choice.  Rashi is a pashtan, but he seems to have thought it obvious
what makes something a "kaneh". 


> The fact that he's describing the mishkan, whereas the archeology is
> all late bayis sheini (or beyond), could answer my archeological
> question.

Specifically, the one that was made after the Chashmonaim, to replace
the one they made out of iron spears.


> As for the value of semicircular (albeit not the more stable
> parabolic) arms:
> Maaseh Chosheiv (ch 7) makes a point of having something that looks like
> galgalei haraqi'ah, based on the parallel made between the neiros and
> the kokhvei lekhes in the beraisa in Middos (see also Yalqut, Pequdei
> 419b).

Indeed the Maaseh Choshev is almost the first sefer to claim that the
arms were round; but he explicitly says that his basis is the fact
that the Rambam says "nimshachim ve'olim" and doesn't say "ba'alachson".
The only earlier sefer to make such a claim is "Chochmas Hamishkon",
which is not that much earlier.  And he also bases himself on the
Rambam's stimas halashon.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 146
***************************************

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..."