Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 185

Mon, 18 Oct 2010

• 1. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger) (David Riceman)
• 2. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Vten Tal Umatar (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Telling All of the Truth About Great Men (Prof. Levine)
• 5. When the Entire Cong Should Say Kaddish with the Mourner (Meir Rabi)
• 6. Re: Recent timers on Shabbat and Yom Tov posting on Hirrhurim (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Stained Glass Windows (Arie Folger)
• 8. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 10. Fwd: Re: Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Vten Tal Umatar (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 12. THE BASICS HALACHOS OF SHATNEZ (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: New [Chabad] Ritual Bath Opens in Northern Tel Aviv (Micha Berger)

  RMB:

<<I'm suggesting that according to the Rambam, the only thing that has
authority is the "mah she'einav ro'os" in the original taqanah, derashah,
or pasuq.

So, he cataloged the pesaqim as he saw them. That's not to establish
precedent. That's to enable people to find the truths he did in an easy
organized way, rather than needing to know Mishnah, Tosefta, medrashei
halakhah, Y-mi, and Bavli well enough to find them, to be able to figure
out a pesaq from a shaqla vetarya, etc..>>

But the "people" who can't go back and determine the meaning of "the 
original taqanah, derashah,

or pasuq" because the MT lacks footnotes will perforce lack "authority".  So what good has he done?

RMB:

<<In the off-list discussion, I wrote that the Rambam only intended to be
a code for the masses, and RDR asked where I got that from.

#42 in the haqdamah says the Yad is "kedei shelo yehei adam tzarikh
lechibut acheir be'olam bedin". Which is why he called it MISHNEH Torah.

However, in Hil TT he tells you the role of mishnah, and how a talmud
chakham is supposed to go beyond it to gemara, such that only "betechilas
talmudo shele'adam" (TT 1:12) would someone spend even 1/3 of his time
on the mode of study called mishnah. Leshitaso, "mishnah" is somewhat
more than zil kerei bei rav, but still, future pesaq comes from gemara
(1:11), not mishnah. Including not Mishneh Torah, which was so that
"ad sheyei TSBP kulah sedurah befi haqol" -- for the masses.>>

No, gemara is analysis, not a text "He should deduce conclusions from premises, deduce things
from others, compare things to others,and deduce things using the 13MSNB until he understand the
essence of the middos and deduces how permitted and prohibited, etc. are deduced from the oral
law.(1:11)"  That can be done using the MT as a base text.  Gemara also includes metaphysics: "and
  the subjects called pardes [cf. HYhT 4:13] are considered part of Talmud (1:12)."

RMB:
<<In the letter I'm discussing, the Rambam tells chakhmei Luneil to study
the topic for themselves, and if they find an error, they should rule
according to their own correction.>>

You are correct that the Rambam views that as the correct way for them to pasken.  In his letter to his
  own student, however, he tells him to study MT and Rif, and to look at the gemara only when they disagree.
I suspect that, while he respected the old school of students of Talmud, he was trying to establish a
new school.

David Riceman

On 10/14/2010 5:05 PM, David Riceman <drice...@optimum.net> wrote
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] Truth and the Rambam
>
> ...I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah
> nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers, and that may be why he
> claims that few laws were deduced from them.
The Rambam says in Sefer HaMItzvos Shoresh Shayni that "rov" laws were 
deduced by them, and being that there were thousands that Osniel ben 
Kenaz reconstructed, the Rambam says, the number that were not forgotten 
must have been much more.

Zvi Lampel

I remember learning that a ben Ch"ul in eretz Yisrael tomorrow and planning to return to ch"ul:
1. says vten tal Umatar while there
2.Continues to say it when back in ch"ul.

I found sources on the former but not the latter.

Anyone have sources on either of these?

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/20101014/0eb7dec8/attachment-0001.htm>

It has become increasing common to "sanitize" 
things in certain circles. Many "gedolim books" 
leave out aspects of the lives of these great 
men, because they do not fit what some consider 
to be the appropriate behavior of a gadol. For 
example, there is no mention of the fact that Rav 
Pam, ZT"L, attended college and earned a master's 
degree in mathematics in the biography of Rav 
Pam. Someone once told me that he even taught 
math at one time in the high school of YTV, but I 
have not verified this. In any case, he did 
attend college and earned two secular degrees.

Is it really the Torah approach to "cover up" 
things that do not fit with the conceptions that 
some of how a gadol is supposed to be? I think 
that the answer is a resounding "No!"  The 
following is from RSRH's commentary on Bereishis 
12:10 - 13. (It is not Rav Hirsch's entire 
commentary on these pesukim, and I urge those who 
are interested to read his entire commentary on these pesukim.)

10 There was a famine in the land, and Avram went 
down into Egypt to sojourn there, because the famine was severe in the land.

11 When he was close to entering Egypt, he said 
to Sarai, his wife: Look, I do know that you are a beautiful woman.

12 So when the Egyptians see you, they will say: 
She is his wife, and they will kill me, but you they will keep alive.

13 Please say that you are my sister, so that 
they will deal well with me to get to you through 
me, and so that, through you, I will remain
alive.

10?13 Vayehi  ra'av ba'aretz .With these words we 
come to a story that at first glance
seems more than a little strange. Avraham left the Land that had been
promised to him; he did not rely on God, Who knows how to provide
even in a wilderness; and it appears at first glance that he compromised
the moral welfare of his wife in order to save himself!

Yet, even if we were incapable of explaining the strange events in
this story; even if we were forced to conclude as the RAMBAN concludes ?
  ?Our father Avraham inadvertently committed
a grave sin by placing his virtuous wife before a stumbling block
of iniquity because of his fear of being killed . . . His leaving the Land,
about which he had been commanded, because of the famine was another
sin he committed ? ? nevertheless, none of this
would perplex us. The Torah does not seek to portray our great men
as perfectly ideal figures; it deifies no man. It says of no one: ?Here you
have the ideal; in this man the Divine assumes human form!? It does
not set before us the life of any one person as the model from which
we might learn what is good and right, what we must do and what we
must refrain from doing. When the Torah wishes to put before us a
model to emulate, it does not present a man, who is born of dust.
Rather, God presents Himself as the model, saying: ?Look upon Me!
Emulate Me! Walk in My ways!? We are never to say: ?This must be
good and right, because so-and-so did it.? The Torah is not an ?anthology
of good deeds.? It relates events not because they are necessarily
worthy of emulation, but because they took place.

The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.
The knowledge given us of their faults and weaknesses does not detract
from the stature of our great men; on the contrary, it adds to their
stature and makes their life stories even more instructive. Had they
been portrayed to us as shining models of perfection, flawless and
unblemished, we would have assumed that they had been endowed
with a higher nature, not given to us to attain. Had they been portrayed
free of passions and inner conflicts, their virtues would have seemed
to us as merely the consequence of their loftier nature, not acquired
by personal merit, and certainly no model we could ever hope to
emulate.

Take, for example, the Anavah (humility) of Moshe. Had we not known
that he was capable also of flying into a rage, we would have assumed
that his humility was an inborn trait not within our capacity to emulate.
It is precisely his outburst (Bemidbar 20:10) that
lends his humility its true greatness: We thus infer that he acquired
humility through hard work, self-control, and self-refinement, and that
we are all obligated to emulate him, since it is within our capacity to
do so.

Also, the Torah relates no sin or error without telling us of its consequences.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101014/02275c53/attachment-0001.htm>

The Siddur printed by Miller (p 877) instructs the entire congregation to
say the first part of the "long" Kaddish said by the mourners, together with
the mourner.
Can anyone shed any light on this?

Does this also apply to saying this identical Kaddish at a Siyum; do all the
participants recite the declaration and the hope to see a restored Yrm?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101015/fd12ef2c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:04:00AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:            I wondered whether anybody was able to explain a bit better ... R'
: fully explained in a book by RHS which I don't have access to). R'
: Michael Broyde wrote:
:> The second position, that of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and others,
:> states that the critical factor is whether the additional force needed
:> to finish the action is present at the time of human activity. Winnowing
:> in the wind is prohibited only when the wind is blowing at the time the
:> wheat is thrown into the wind; the barrel case is permitted since one
:> is placing the barrels away from the fire. Placing the barrels actually
:> in the fire would be prohibited.

: I don't really understand this. Or at least, I can understand a
: distinction if it is not clear that the fire is going to reach the barrels
: (eg there was no wind, so it might not spread that far). But if there
: was a wind that was pushing the fire along, how is this any different?
...

You seem to prefer an explanation that speaks to the reliability of the
other causes of the event.

Just judging from this bit, though, it sounds like RYBS is focusing on
which cause is chronologically last. Thus, if you throw it up in the
air and then the wind starts blowing, the "culpability" falls more to
the wind than to you. ("Culpability" in quotes because wind obviously
bears no guilt in violating Shabbos.)

Similarly, it depends on which step was the last that went into combining
the barrels and the fire.

Not necessary or sufficient cause, but final cause.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R'YL asked:
> This morning someone told me that he had heard  that RYBS once
> spoke against installing stained glass windows in a synagogue,
> saying it was Chukas Ha Goyim. He said he had heard that RYBS
> went so far as to say that one should not go to a synagogue with
> stained glass windows to hear shofar.
>
> Can anyone verify this?

It's a letter, printed in Community, Covenant and Conversation, of the
Meotzar haRav series, and it was about a non denominational chapel at
a prominent university (perhaps Columbia IIRC).

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

RDR noted:
> And see Igrot haRambam, ed. Sheilat, p.312 line 4 to p. 313
> line 2 and p. 339 lines 1-11.

The sefer being temporarily unavailable to me, I was wondering whether
you could elucidate us.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Basler Gymnasium experimentiert mit Chawrut?-Lernen
* Where Will We Find Refuge ... from technology overload
* Video-Vortrag: Psalm 34
* We May Have Free Will, After All
* Equal Justice for All
* Brutal Women of Nazi Germany
* Gibt es in der Unterhaltungsliteratur eine Rolle f?r G"tt?

RDR wrote a number of replies to my position / personally troubling
problem with the Rambam. I'm going to reorder his points to deal with
the logically prior first.

The emails were at
    Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:00:49pm EDT
    Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:59:30pm EDT
    Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:59:39pm EDT

So, on Tues RDR wrote:
> 3.  Truth:  I think the Rambam changed his mind about TruthwithacapitalT  
> between the time he wrote the introduction to ShM and the time he wrote  
> the MN.  At the earlier time he thought that great metaphysical truths  
> were embedded deep in the details of halacha; by the later time he  
> thought that they were to be found in aggadta, and that halachot had  
> general significance, but the minutae of halachot did not.  Hence, for  
> example, he casts aspersions on "havayyot d'Abbaye v'Rava" in one of his  
> letters.

To which he added on Thu afternoon:
> I realize once again that I don't fully understand RMB's claim.   
> According to the Rambam man's telos is the study of metaphysics...
>                                                        Halacha is a  
> means of setting up a community which enables that goal, and hence  
> summarizing halacha in a way that will leave more time for the study of  
> metaphysics is a contribution to man's telos.  The study of the minutae  
> of halacha, except in a few incidental details, is not.

I understand the Rambam, the middle section of the Moreh cheileq III,
differently. I'm drawing mostly from peraqim 26-33, and the "approaching
the palace" mashal of 51.

Pereq 27 opens with the notion that mitzvos exist for 2 reasons, to
perfect the soul and to perfect the body. (Echos of Juvenal's "mens sana
in corpore sano", a quote from his poem Satire X". Another version uses
the word "anima", refering to nefesh rather than ruach, the rashei teivos
of which were adopted by sneaker company ASICS. Just to reiterate the
point that there are huge parallels between the Rambam's hashkafah and
the Greeks.)

He then continues that the latter is a precondition for the former.
That halakhah helps create an orderly body, notions of property and
society, in order to enable the refinemnt of the soul. And so, in total,
halakhah exists to refine the soul.

Pereq 28 concludes discusses laws that impart theological and metaphysical
truth.

Then he sets up pereq 32, which is about those laws aimed at traning
man away from AZ -- falsehood.

Last is 33, mastery of taavos. But as we saw in 26-27, these exist as
a necessary precondition to yedi'ah and inevitable expressions of it.
Thus true Yedi'ah is impossible without vehalakhta bidrakhav (pulling from
the end of Dei'os pereq 1 -- and note the dei'os - yedi'ah connection).

So bichlal I would say the Rambam's notion of life's purpose is more
the study of theology than metaphysics. The Rambam explains that it it
yichud hayodei'ah vehaYadu'ah which enables a person who knows more about
the Borei to gain nitzchiyus into Olam haBa. Form is internalized as
inFORMation. When you think of a table, you have the tzurah of a table,
often an incomplete one, in your head. Nitzchiyus is part of the Tzelem
whose tzurah we internalize through yedi'ah.

Returning to RDR of Thur afternoon:
> What's unclear to me is RMB's understanding of the Rambam's  
> understanding of the relationship between halachic study and man's  
> telos.  If halachic study is the search for Truth, is it an example of  
> man's telos, or not?

I see the Rambam as describing dinim as tools to enable the search for
Truth. So, I think he holds that halachic study is quite directly a
means of acheiving the telos of knowing theology.

On Tue RDR wrote:
> 1.  Clutter:  The Rambam did not like clutter...
> He did not like the idea that Moses might not have been able to give  
> decisive answers to any halachic query...
> I suspect that it really bothered him that the 13 midot shehatorah  
> nidreshet bahem do not yield unique answers...
> 2.  Psak:  The Darkei Moshe uses the inspired phrase "nohagin lifsok"  
> and variants thereof quite often....
> The Rambam knew quite well that by the time of the Holy Babylonian  
> Talmud there were machloksim in just about everything, and he knew quite  
> well that often klalei hapsak do not yield unique solutions..

And on Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:57:09PM -0400, R Zvi Lampel commented:
> The Rambam says in Sefer HaMItzvos Shoresh Shayni that "rov" laws were  
> deduced by them, and being that there were thousands that Osniel ben  
> Kenaz reconstructed, the Rambam says, the number that were not forgotten  
> must have been much more.

So, neither derashah nor sevarah yeild unique solutions, most dinim come
from derashah. And some Truths are miSinai, and some truths are those
derivations a Sanhedrin chooses to make law.

Leshitas haRambam, machloqes is only when deriving laws for which the
methods allow multiple answers, and that in arguments over interpretation
of existing law, one is beta'us.

Thus, what the law was becomes a truth to track down. There is no legal
process shaping that law over time; pesaq is either getting to one's
best understanding of what Moshe was told, or an act of getting into
the heads of the enacting Beis Din. Original intent.

This is what I'm saying is uniquely Rambam. The notion that a law could
be left blurry around the edges and solidified through interpretation
and shaped through reinterpretation -- eg a new pesaq becomes more
commonplace -- simply isn't within his codicil.

And while the haqdamah to the Yad talks about the authority of a rav
on the community to whom his pesaqim are nispashetim (and no others),
recall that this is only within the context of this limited definition
of the role of pesaq.

E.g. Within the Rambam's system, only one tzad can be right about mayim
acharonim -- whichever one happens to match the daas of the beis din
that enacted it. The fact that Ashkenazim follow the Tosafos (which fits
the Y-mi's only mentioning melach sedomis with no comparisons to mayim
rishonim, and thus was likely Ashkenazi pesaq ever since EY Jews from
Italy got there) would not make it more permissable for us to be lenient.
Since he holds Tosafos are wrong on this, their ruling is ta'us, not
eilu va'eilu, nispasheit doesn't matter.

RDR, Tues again:
> that the Rambam thought he was doing just what the Rama later described;  
> he was writing a book of normative practice for Egyptian Jewry.

Except when he didn't actually write the practices as they were normative
in Egypt. The Rambam tried to /set/ normative practice, not recording
what was already accepted.

Now for R David Riceman's Thu evening post:
>> So, he cataloged the pesaqim as he saw them. That's not to establish
>> precedent. That's to enable people to find the truths he did in an easy
>> organized way, rather than needing to know Mishnah, Tosefta, medrashei
>> halakhah, Y-mi, and Bavli well enough to find them, to be able to figure
>> out a pesaq from a shaqla vetarya, etc..

> But the "people" who can't go back and determine the meaning of "the
> original taqanah, derashah, or pasuq" because the MT lacks footnotes
> will perforce lack "authority". So what good has he done?

The posqim are the ones who are learning lower-case-g gemara, not just
relying on mishnah (Mishnah or Mishneh Torah). The hamon am who never
go beyond the MT aren't expected to have to detemine the original intent
of the law because they aren't to pasqen for themselves.

...
>> #42 in the haqdamah says the Yad is "kedei shelo yehei adam tzarikh
>> lechibut acheir be'olam bedin". Which is why he called it MISHNEH Torah.

>> However, in Hil TT he tells you the role of mishnah, and how a talmud
>> chakham is supposed to go beyond it to gemara, such that only "betechilas
>> talmudo shele'adam" (TT 1:12) would someone spend even 1/3 of his time
>> on the mode of study called mishnah. Leshitaso, "mishnah" is somewhat
>> more than zil kerei bei rav, but still, future pesaq comes from gemara
>> (1:11), not mishnah. Including not Mishneh Torah, which was so that
>> "ad sheyei TSBP kulah sedurah befi haqol" -- for the masses.

> No, gemara is analysis, not a text "He should deduce conclusions from
> premises... how permitted and prohibited, etc. are deduced from the oral
> law.(1:11)" That can be done using the MT as a base text. Gemara also
> includes metaphysics: "and the subjects called pardes [cf. HYhT 4:13]
> are considered part of Talmud (1:12)."

It can't be done using MT as a beis text. Going back to the haqdamah of
the Yad, he tells you that Mishnah, Sifra, Sifri, Tosefta, Yerushalmi
and Bavli (#40) are the necessary base texts in order to try to pull off
gemara to the extent of being able to be capable of pesaq -- "ve'achar
kakh yivada meihem hedrekh hanekhochah badevarim ha'asurim vehamutarim
ushe'ar dinei Torah hei'ach hi".

The MT is for the masses, who are still at 1/3 talmud, and aren't going
to be taking their conclusions down to lemaaaseh action.

>> In the letter I'm discussing, the Rambam tells chakhmei Luneil to study
>> the topic for themselves, and if they find an error, they should rule
>> according to their own correction.

> You are correct that the Rambam views that as the correct way for them
> to pasken. In his letter to his own student, however, he tells him to
> study MT and Rif, and to look at the gemara only when they disagree.
> I suspect that, while he respected the old school of students of Talmud,
> he was trying to establish a new school.

Here's how I saw it:

The Rambam tells his students to use their brains to find original intent.
He says the same thing to chakhmei Luneil. That fits his explanation of
what machloqes comes from -- only when new law is created.

To chakhmei Luneil, who aren't his talmidim, he tells them that their
understanding could well be different than his, and it could simply
be that he erred. In which case, they should follow the Luneilian
understanding of original intent.

To his talmidim, who are also therefore indirectly the Rif's talmidim,
he tells them that the most likely places to find error are where he and
the Rif didn't reach the same conclusion. And recall that he said that
this "original intent" thing was not what his predecesors -- including
the Rif -- did. So, if handed down interpretation and the Rambam don't
match, that's where talmidim should spend their time looking for their
own understanding of the original record.

:-)BBii!
-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 10/15/2010 11:36 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>  I understand the Rambam, the middle section of the Moreh cheileq III,
>  differently. I'm drawing mostly from peraqim 26-33, and the "approaching
>  the palace" mashal of 51.
>
>  Pereq 27 opens with the notion that mitzvos exist for 2 reasons, to
>  perfect the soul and to perfect the body. (Echos of Juvenal's "mens sana
>  in corpore sano", a quote from his poem Satire X". Another version uses
>  the word "anima", refering to nefesh rather than ruach, the rashei teivos
>  of which were adopted by sneaker company ASICS. Just to reiterate the
>  point that there are huge parallels between the Rambam's hashkafah and
>  the Greeks.)
>
>  He then continues that the latter is a precondition for the former.
>  That halakhah helps create an orderly body, notions of property and
>  society, in order to enable the refinemnt of the soul. And so, in total,
>  halakhah exists to refine the soul.
>
>  Pereq 28 concludes discusses laws that impart theological and metaphysical
>  truth.
>
>  Then he sets up pereq 32, which is about those laws aimed at traning
>  man away from AZ -- falsehood.
>
>  Last is 33, mastery of taavos. But as we saw in 26-27, these exist as
>  a necessary precondition to yedi'ah and inevitable expressions of it.
>  Thus true Yedi'ah is impossible without vehalakhta bidrakhav (pulling from
>  the end of Dei'os pereq 1 -- and note the dei'os - yedi'ah connection).
There's an important distinction in the Rambam between heretical ideas
(e.g., that God has a body, see
H. Teshuva 3:7 and Raavad ad. loc.) and false but not heretical ideas
(e.g., the denial of physical law, see MN I:73-76, and the denial of
human free will, see H. Teshuvah 5:1-3).

There's a second important terminological distinction: sometimes the
Rambam uses Torah in a wide sense, to
include philosophy, and sometimes in a narrow sense, to include only
interpretations of scripture or halacha.  See
the beginning of the Rambam's introduction to MN "It is not here
intended to explain all of these expression to ... those who confine
their attention to the study of the holy Law, I mean the canonical law
alone; for the true knowledge of the Torah is the special aim of this
and similar works (tr. Friedlander p. 2)," and see HYhT 4:13.

So yes, in addition to indirectly helping the study of metaphysics by
ensuring a settled community (cf. H. Teshuva 9:1) the Torah directly
helps by inculcating some metaphysical doctrines, but by no means all of
them.  See the Rambam's introductory epistle to the MN, where he
emphasizes the importance of studying philosophy in an orderly way, not
in the disorderly way induced by Talmud Torah.

To quote the palace metaphor "Those who arrive at the palace but go
round about it are those who devote themselves exclusively to the study
of the practical law; they believe traditionally in true principles of
faith, and learn the practical worship of God, but are not trained in
philosophic treatment of the principles of the Law, and do not endeavor
to establish the truth of their faith by proof. (tr. Friedlander pp.
384-385)"
>  RMB:
>  So bichlal I would say the Rambam's notion of life's purpose is more
>  the study of theology than metaphysics.
This is an anachronism; for the Rambam and his contemporaries theology
and metaphysics were the same subject.
>
>  RMB:
>  I see the Rambam as describing dinim as tools to enable the search for
>  Truth. So, I think he holds that halachic study is quite directly a
>  means of acheiving the telos of knowing theology.
See the citations above which stress the limits of "practical law" for
theology.
>
>  Thus, what the law was becomes a truth to track down. There is no legal
>  process shaping that law over time; pesaq is either getting to one's
>  best understanding of what Moshe was told, or an act of getting into
>  the heads of the enacting Beis Din. Original intent.
>
>  This is what I'm saying is uniquely Rambam.
Really? See Ish HaHalacha (tr. Kaplan pp.37-38): "The ideal of halakhic
man is the redemption of the world ... via the adaptation of empirical
reality to the ideal patterns of halakha."  Admittedly RYBS was
influenced by the Rambam.  But even the Ramban, in the introduction to
Milhamot HaShem, agrees that when the Rif's opinion seems inexplicable
we shouldn't take it as precedent.
>    RMB:
>  Except when he didn't actually write the practices as they were normative
>  in Egypt. The Rambam tried to /set/ normative practice, not recording
>  what was already accepted.
True.
>  RMB:
>  The posqim are the ones who are learning lower-case-g gemara, not just
>  relying on mishnah (Mishnah or Mishneh Torah). The hamon am who never
>  go beyond the MT aren't expected to have to detemine the original intent
>  of the law because they aren't to pasqen for themselves.
I think that's wrong.  Remember he advises his student to look at the
gemara only when the Rif and the Rambam disagree.  He was hoping to
supplant the gemara.
>
>  It can't be done using MT as a beis text.
Why not?
>    Going back to the haqdamah of
>  the Yad, he tells you that Mishnah, Sifra, Sifri, Tosefta, Yerushalmi
>  and Bavli (#40) are the necessary base texts in order to try to pull off
>  gemara to the extent of being able to be capable of pesaq -- "ve'achar
>  kakh yivada meihem hedrekh hanekhochah badevarim ha'asurim vehamutarim
>  ushe'ar dinei Torah hei'ach hi".
Before he accomplished his great feat of summarizing all of these sources.
>  RMB:
>  To his talmidim, who are also therefore indirectly the Rif's talmidim,
>  he tells them that the most likely places to find error are where he and
>  the Rif didn't reach the same conclusion.
Why does it matter whose talmidim they are? The halakha is only as they
themselves see it.  Furthermore, isn't it possible that the Rambam, who
was greatly influenced by the Rif, is likely to make the same error?

David Riceman

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>  I remember learning that a ben Ch"ul in eretz Yisrael tomorrow and
> planning to return to ch"ul:
> 1. says vten tal Umatar while there
> 2.Continues to say it when back in ch"ul.

> I found sources on the former but not the latter.
> Anyone have sources on either of these?

See collection of Shitos in Piskei Halochos 117:3,
WRT part 2 he brings 2 opinions
1) to stop asking (Divrei Yatziv vol 1 #86, Shraga Hameir vol 7 #148,
Minchas Yitzchok vol 10 # 9) and
2) to ask in Shomeia Tfila Yechaveh Daas vol 1 # 73 (and especially if
he plans to return to EU before the 60th day of the Tkufa) and see also
Mishna Halocos vol 5 # 28) (with a special Nusach of "vsein taal umatar
bartzeinu hakdosha ubchol hamkomos hatzorichimlkach")

-- 
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Please see 
http://www.jerusalemkoshernews.com/2010/10/the-basics-halachos-of-sh
atnez/

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:18:20PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Will someone please explain to me why the halachic standards that the  
> rest of Orthodoxy follows are not good enough for Chabad? Indeed, what 
> are the differences?

Actually, the problem may be the reverse...

L insists on using bor al gabei bor, rather than the standard hashakah.
I don't think it's a matter of din or even halachic preference; rather,
like the straight-armed menoros, something the rebbe said became a
symbol of who they are. The Rebbe Rashab designed a bor-al-gabei-bor,
and now it's a Lub "thing". I only have it on say-so that there is no
actual halachic/hashkafic argument for the preference.

In a BAGB, the otzar is underneath the immersion pool. This keeps the
cold otzar from freezing the person in the miqvah, since cold water will
stay to the bottom. However, it also implies that there is less mixing of
waters than in other designs, making it an inferior design according to
some posqim (based on the Raavad's require "nosei se'ah venoteil se'ah"),
see the Shakh YD 201:63.

IOW, I do not know of an L reason (other than comfort and pride in one's
rebbe) to actually prefer a BAGB. I do know of halachic reasons for a
non-L to prefer going to another one. Although I do not know anyone who
says that BAGB is outright pasul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 185
***************************************

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..."