Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 107

Thu, 23 Jun 2011

• 1. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise! (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (T6...@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: eye pains on shabbat (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 7. Re: Bittul of non-K and Chametz during Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Ehrlachkeit, not Frumkeit (Harry Maryles)
• 9. minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Tznius for Men (M Cohen)
• 11. Taking Midrashim Literally (was Consumer Alert: Minhog Scams On The Rise!) (Prof. Levine)
• 12. The Rambam and Eliyahu haNavi (Micha Berger)

On 22/06/2011 5:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> At 08:21 PM 6/21/2011, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 21/06/2011 8:17 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>>
>>> Halakha does not allow for a revelation other than Sinai.
>>> Nevi'im can tell us nuances, but a navi who tries to give us
>>> "revelation" of laws needs to die.
>>
>> Excuse me? Why do you think we say Baruch Shem? Because Moshe heard the mal'achim say it.
>
> That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the reason?

The Medrash, exactly as you said.  How is that not a source?  Suddenly
Medrash is not Torah?!  Also the Tur OC 619, and Hagahos Maimonios
Hilchos K"Sh ch 1 (both cited by Magen Avraham 619:8)



>> Why do we say Baruch She'amar? Because it was on a piece of paper that fell from heaven.
>
> A piece of paper that fell from heaven. I'm not even sure how to
> respond to that. I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of paper
> that fall from heaven.

Except that that is *exactly* how we got Baruch She'amar.  I'm not sure
how to respond to someone who openly says they don't believe that.
See Taz OC 51:1


>> Why do we start saying at least the first word of the part of
>> kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"? Because Eliyahu told an amora
>> to say it. How did Moshe know that the ketores can prevent a
>> plague? Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.
>
> That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the reason?

The footnote in the new annotated edition of SA Harav 56:7 gives the
following sources:
Manhig, dinei tefillah ch 4, citing the Medrash
Bet Yosef, OC 56
Also see:
Or Zarua, vol 1 ch 102, citing Vayikra Rabba
Shibolei Haleket ch 15, citing agadah.


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

On 22/06/2011 5:34 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
> IMO this contradicts what you have written about Eliyohu HaNovi. 
> Again, as R. A. Miller said many times about stories like this, "We
> are not mechuyav to believe these stories."

SO why are we mechuyav to believe RSRH?

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

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 07:45:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 21/06/2011 1:17 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> Be this as it may, I have wondered more than once how the ARI could
>> come along and change so many things and have these changes accepted
>> by many communities. It is all the more surprising to me given that he
>> lived for only 38 years according to many sources.

> It's because he didn't make anything up himself; everything he taught
> came from his rebbe, Eliyohu Hanovi.  He revealed secrets that had not
> been known before him, so it's logical that people changed their
> minhogim to bring them into line with these new revelations, just as
> the medical discoveries of the past 200 years have caused everyone to
> change their lifestyles.

This raises two questions:

1- How do we understand the conflict between
    a- the tanur shel achnai story's conclusion about "lo bashamayim
       hi" (also implied by the limitations placed around the concept
       of hora'as sha'ah), and
    b- the fact that when the bas qol said "eilu va'eilu .. vehalakhah
       keBH" we did then started exclusively following beis Hillel.

I summarized the shitos in the Encyc Talmudit entry "bas qol" on
Aspaqlaria at
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/01/legislative-authority-of-bas-qol.s
html>.

R' Nissin Gaon gives two sevaros that make ignoring the evidence for R'
Eliezer to be the exception, and that normally a bas qol would decide
the din (like eilu va'eilu):

1- Halakhah kemoso bekhol maqom states a general rule about machloqesin
between RE and RY. The tanur was the exception to the rule. Had the bas
qol spoken about this case, we would follow it.

2- The bas qol was a test. Thus the final "nitzchuni".

Tosafos have two opinions:

3- The bas qol only spoke to reinforce R' Eliezer's kavod -- a bas qol
can't decide din.

4- Halakhah kebeis Hillel is only the din because it fits the normal
rules of pesaq (BH was the larger school). Again, the bas qol only said
what we would have known through process.

5- The Or Sameiach says something similar to Tosafos's 2nd opinion, but
also allows following bas qol when all else is neutral.

This leads us to RAM's post...
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 05:47:18PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> Nevi'im can tell us nuances, but a navi who tries to give us
:> "revelation" of laws needs to die.

: My understanding is that this is true only if their revelation
: contradicts what we already know about Torah to be true.

And thus not related to pesaq of new or open questions. It's entirely
about overturning. Whether, like R' Nissim Gaon, this means bending the
process for new laws or specifically about overturning known Torah,
that's the above machloqes.

A second issue invoking Eliyahu haNavi's authority behind the Ari based
minhagim raises:

It Eliyahu haNavi included in "bashamayim"? Didn't we recently have a
discussion about his remaining alive so as to be around to restore
the shalsheles hamesorah from the musmachei MRAH?

Third, how many of these practices were made public by the Ari? If Eliyahu
haNavi taught him the new and correct practices, why wasn't he promulgating
them rather than it waiting for his talmidim and their talmidim?

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:25:12PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 22/06/2011 5:02 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> That's Midrash. What's your source for that actually being the reason?

> The Medrash, exactly as you said.  How is that not a source?...

1- An impressive list of rishonim hold that aggadic stories not only have
a nimshal, but aren't necessarily historic. You know what the Rambam says
(at the intro to Pereq Cheileq) about people who take the more fantastic
stories as literal...

2- Aggadita is never a halachic source. Y-mi Peah 13a, Mavo haTalmud
of R' Shemuel haNagid, and the kelal is cited in pragmatic contexts
by the Teshuvos haGeonim, the Eshkol (2:47), and the Noda biYhudah
(YD 161(,

But to say that's relevent is conflating two issues -- the story of
the tefillah's origin and the creation of a rule that it should be
said by us.

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:21:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Excuse me?  Why do you think we say Baruch Shem?  Because Moshe heard
> the mal'achim say it.  Why do we say Baruch She'amar?  Because it was on
> a piece of paper that fell from heaven.  Why do we start saying at least
> the first word of the part of kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"?  Because
> Eliyahu told an amora to say it.  How did Moshe know that the ketores can
> prevent a plague?  Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.  There are many
> examples of things we do and say because of supernatural revelation.

We learned the matbei'ah from the mal'akhim, or from the peteq. The dinim
derabbanan to say those matbei'os were legislated in the normal ways. We
aren't saying them on the authority of anyone in heaven.

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 01:36:43PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
: If it was "logical that people changed their minhogim to bring them
: into line with these revelations," then why didn't this happen in
: Germany? There most of the old Ashkenazic minhagim were preserved
: scrupulously. (For the record, Kabbolas Shabbos was not introduced into
: Frankfurt until about 1700 and at that time there was much opposition
: to it. To this day KAJ in NY says Kabbolas Shabbos differently than most
: other places.)

Let me again trot out my triangle of halachic concerns... A poseiq has
to weigh pros and cons in order to reach a decision. It's not a dry
algorithm. Those concerns fit within a space that has three corners:
formal halachic analysis, aggadic concerns, Toras imekha (established
norms).

As I blogged
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2007/12/halachic-process-part-ii.shtml>,
I believe chaasidim (and Qabbalah-influenced Sepharadim) and the baalei
mussar looked for ways to maximize the impact of mitzvos, and therefore
gave more weight to aggadic concerns, to having a halakhah that fit
the movement's worldview.

Classical Litvishkeit (and non-Qabbalah influenced Sepharadim, eg ROY's
derekh in pesaq) creates textualists, people who look at what rov posqim
hold, or which sevara is compelling.

And others place the most emphasis in preserving minhag Yisrael sabba.
Among most Yekke's, this means up to and including the Maharil, roughly
the beginning of Ashkenazi achronim.

It doesn't make other weighting systems wrong, or less logical, even if
they do produce wildly different answers. We are navigating conflicting
values, and different priority schemes will render one more compelling
or the other.

Thus I agree with RZS (quick, someone bring out some bramfe for a
"lechaim"!) that it's perfectly logical to change minhagim to fit the
new model for understanding how Hashem relates to us and what it says
about how we should try to relate to Him. But no less logical that
it didn't happen in Germany. For that matter, even if Germans /did/
weigh aggadic concerns the way many others did, they wouldn't change
minhagim to conform to the Ari, they would change them to better fit
the implications (lemashal) of Horeb and Collected Writings.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

 

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 


>> The word "frum" has become a near-synonym for Orthodox. How  this came
to be is noteworthy.

"Frum" descends from the German  "fromm", meaning pious or devout. In
pre-war Yiddish, usage appears to have  varied widely. On the one hand,
those who named their daughters "Fruma"  clearly thought being frum as
complimentary. On the other, there was an  idiom, or as Rav Aharon Kotler
often put it, "Frum iz a galech; ehrlich iz a  Yid - the town priest is
`pious', a Jew is refined." 
 
 
 


>>>>>
 
I don't know this idiom, it was not part of the culture I grew up  in.  In 
normal, everyday Yiddish and Orthodox English, "frum" means  Torah-observant 
and "ehrlech" means "honest, having integrity, having  principles."  If you 
look up ehrlech in a Yiddish-English dictionary, you  will find it defined 
as "honest."
 
The two categories overlap, they are not meant to be contrasted and  
certainly not opposite.  And BTW "ehrlech" does not mean  "refined."  The word for 
"refined" is "eidel."
 
 
The wry apercu attributed to R' Kotler -- "Frum is der galach" -- is meant  
as a criticism of those frum Jews who are not ehrlich.  It is also a  
not-so-subtle dig at certain priests and other outwardly-pious non-Jews whose  
private behavior leaves much to be desired.  The Church has had its share  of 
scandals, no news there.  
 
A frum Jew should be ehrlich, and should also be eidel.
 
Translation:  An observant Jew should be honest -- should be ethical,  
should have integrity, should be principled -- and should /also/ be  refined in 
his dress, speech and manners.
 
If he keeps Shabbos, keeps kosher, keeps the mitzvos -- he is frum.   It is 
not a /bad/ thing to be frum, it's just not enough for a fully-developed  
Torah Jew.
 
 

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




_____________________ 
 
 
 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110622/ff016f74/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:51:17PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I don't know this idiom, it was not part of the culture I grew up  in.  In 
: normal, everyday Yiddish and Orthodox English, "frum" means  Torah-observant 
: and "ehrlech" means "honest, having integrity, having  principles."...

...
: The wry apercu attributed to R' Kotler -- "Frum is der galach" -- is meant  
: as a criticism of those frum Jews who are not ehrlich.  It is also a  
: not-so-subtle dig at certain priests and other outwardly-pious non-Jews whose  
Given the essay by RSW I linked to and discussed, aside from my childhood
memories of Litvisher ancestors, clearly indicate "frum" was an insult
and their -- and thus RAK's -- mileu.

still laud ehrlachkeit -- and we came to define ourselves by how we're
unique, rather than what's most important. (Which is now causing a shift
in priorities.)ccording to RSW, frumkeit isn't about outward piety,
but piety that's about an instinct to be a pious person than about the
values about which one is supposed to be pious in their pursuit.

My blog entry was partly about where this shift came from -- how did a
word that in the Lithuanian Yeshiva was considered deragory come to mean
something entirely different in today's modern Yiddish and Yinglish?
On Areivim, repeated in that blog entry, I suggested it's because C and
R still laud ehrlachkeit -- and we came to define ourselves by how we're
unique, rather than what's most important. (Which is now causing a shift
in priorities.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Strength does not come from winning. Your
mi...@aishdas.org        struggles develop your strength When you go
http://www.aishdas.org   through hardship and decide not to surrender,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      that is strength.        - Arnold Schwarzenegger

On 6/22/2011 3:50 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Rbn Katz has defended Chazal and shown one should not be quick to be
> machmir against them Nevertheless, I assume R. Elyashiv was talking
> about some external injury to the eye and not internal problems that
> affect the eye.

While I am with RTK on this one, RYSE's position is not so clear. I 
think he tends more to R' Yitzchak Lampronati in the lice issue. My 
first indication of this was his psak - not widely accepted - that the 
heter of yayin mevushal no longer applies, since the change in taste 
that cooking once worked on the wine does not occur ba'zman ha'zeh.

YGB

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 08:45:36PM -0400, I wrote:
: LAD, the parallel to RSZA saying that
:     only a mashehu of chameitz that is tastable to someone is not bateil
: would be
:     a taaroves of <1:60 but is tastable (e.g. a davar charif) is also not
:     batail.
: 
: This was my my initial objection to your chiddush, when I said that
: you had the sense of RSZA reversed.

I think I got another perspective on all this, which made it easier to
make my point more clearly...

RMR is writing as though the gemara in its naive sense is a given, and RSZA
made a chiddush. IOW, by default I would think that a mashehu that has no
taam still isn't bateil, and RSZA is adding that it is.

I am writing as though RSZA is explaining the gemara's point: I would
have thought 1:1000 or even smaller would be bateil, we therefore are
told that it IS not bateil [with an implied] if it has a ta'am.

You are speaking of a chiddush of a new bitul, and I am speaking of the
chiddush of a lack of bitul.

The flaw in your perspective is that the parallel to bitul beshishim
would require believing that RSZA could detach 1:60 from taam. You
said that's a big chiddush, I'm saying it's so big, it's impossible --
it violate zil qeri bei rav level certainty. Therefore, I stand by my
understanding, that the implication to 1:60 would only be as per the
analogy I quoted from myself at the top of the post.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpilei Tohar

--- On Wed, 6/22/11, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:




From: Micha Berger mi...@aishdas.org


>> The word "frum" has become a near-synonym for Orthodox. How this came
to be is noteworthy.

"Frum" descends from the German "fromm", meaning pious or devout...

"Frum iz a galech; ehrlich iz a Yid - the town priest is
`pious', a Jew is refined." 

>>>>>

... "frum" means Torah-observant and "ehrlech" means "honest, having
integrity, having principles." If you look up ehrlech in a Yiddish-English
dictionary, you will find it defined as "honest."

The two categories overlap, they are not meant to be contrasted and
certainly not opposite. And BTW "ehrlech" does not mean "refined." The word
for "refined" is "eidel."
?

The wry apercu attributed to R' Kotler -- "Frum is der galach" -- is meant as a criticism of those frum Jews who are not ehrlich... 

A frum Jew should be ehrlich, and should also be eidel.
?

Translation: An observant Jew should be honest -- should be ethical, should
have integrity, should be principled -- and should /also/ be refined in his
dress, speech and manners.
?

If he keeps Shabbos, keeps kosher, keeps the mitzvos -- he is frum. It is not a /bad/ thing to be frum, it's just not enough for a fully-developed Torah Jew.
----------------------------------------------
?
I agree but I think these definitions are a bit simplistic. 
?
Even though the word Frum?has always meant being?religious in the BALM sense, it has evolved into a perjorative when combined with the suffix 'keit'. 
?
Frumkeit has come to mean a kind of Yuhara ... a showing off how Frum one
is by adopting certain outwardly apparent Mitzvos, Minhagim, and
Chumros;?wearing a type clothing common to a community that is percieved as
more religious or using certain catchphrases and?idioms?common to
their?culture - so as?to identfy with?them and percieved by others as part
of that community... instead of doing it entirely L'Shem Shomayim.?
?
Also - Ehrlichkeit as we use it today is more than just being honest. I
think it implies attaching a high value to (and practicing)?BALC as well as
being Frum in BALM.
?
If someone is called an Ehrliche Yid, I think it means that?he is 'Frum' in
both BALM and BALC... and considers every act he does in a 'Kiddush
HaShem/Chilul HaShem'?sense. IOW they would avoid even the appearance of
any wrong doing of any kind.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/0323370c/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I'm fairly sure that the Avot, Moshe Rabbenu and Hazal all wore
sandals without socks, and I see no reason why a dress code developed
in a colder climate should be more appropriate.>>

In particular in many Arab lands this was common.

In a similar vein I recently read an article about very early shabbat
evening davening
and other halachot of Kriat Shma at night in Germany.
The Gemara itself does not seem to discuss exactly when to bring in shabbat.

The claim was that many of these minhagim arose because of the late time
that shabbat comes in during the summer (and also on the Yerushalm).
Interestingly  the Terumat Hadeshen brings the custom to daven maariv
friday night then to eat shabbat dinner and afterwards to go for a walk
on the Danube while it was still light (note they went for walks)


-- 
Eli Turkel

RSM writes .. I'm fairly sure that the Avot, Moshe Rabbenu and Hazal all
wore sandals without socks, 
and I see no reason why a dress code developed in a colder climate should be
more appropriate.

I also am not happy that chareidi dress code seems inappropriate at times
for colder climates.

However, I see no evidence at all for your claim that 'the Avot, Moshe
Rabbenu and Hazal all wore sandals without socks'

What are your proofs?

mc

At 08:50 PM 6/22/2011, Lisa Liel wrote in response to R. Zev Sero


>ZS: >Excuse me?  Why do you think we say Baruch Shem?  Because Moshe
> >heard the mal'achim say it.
>
>LL: That's Midrash.  What's your source for that actually being the reason?
>
>ZS: >Why do we say Baruch She'amar?  Because it was on a piece of paper
> >that fell from heaven.
>
>LL: A piece of paper that fell from heaven.  I'm not even sure how to
>respond to that.  I don't think we get our liturgy from pieces of
>paper that fall from heaven.
>
>ZS: >Why do we start saying at least the first word of the part of
> >kaddish after "Yehei Shmeih Rabba"?  Because Eliyahu told an amora
> >to say it.  How did Moshe know that the ketores can prevent a
> >plague?  Because the Malach Hamaves told him so.
>
>LL: That's Midrash.  What's your source for that actually being the reason?

Midrashim need not be taken literally.  See

<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirsch.pdf>Rav 
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita I (from R. N. Slifkin's web site)

<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaHebrew_ll.pdf>Rav 
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita II (Original Hebrew article from Hama'ayan)

<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf>Rav 
Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita III 
(Translation as it first appeared in Light Magazine)

Let me add to this the following which is from 
The Musar Movement by Rabbi Dov Katz (English 
translation) Volume 1, Part 1 footnote 2, pages 
301-302. (This is a biography of Reb Yisroel Salanter.

          2.   See S. Mark, op. cit., pp. 88?90. The author also relates that
            Prof. Hermann Helmholtz, the famous philosopher and scientist,
            evinced an interest in meeting R. 
Israel, and an animated
           conversation took place between the two of them. Helmholtz seized
           the opportunity to express his surprise that the Talmud, which is
           built on such solid and logical foundations should have given
           space to such legends which sound like fanatical and outlandish
           fantasies, such as the stories of Rabbah bar bar Chana, which
           tell of a bird standing in the sea, with the water reaching up to
           its feet, and its head to heaven (Baba Batra 73b). R. Israel
           answered by using an analogy: They were living in 1871, after
           Germany had won its great victory over France. The King of
           Prussia had been crowned Kaiser of all Germany. His emblem
           was an eagle. Previously it had been one-headed; now it had
           become two-headed. Hundreds of poets 
and authors had celebrated
           the event in diverse forms. He himself had read a poem in
           which the author had given a description of the glory of modern
           Germany in these terms: The great German eagle had one head
           reaching out to Memel and the other to Metz; its one wing tip
           touched Kiel and the other Badensee. They knew the reference.
          The poet had described how far German territory now extended
          in all four directions. Now, the professor could imagine to
          himself that 600 years hence ? when no one would remember
          how Germany had been fragmentized in principalities and the
          metaphoric description of the rise of the monarchy ? someone
          would find a story of a two-headed eagle with wings extending some
          300 miles in some library. Would he not express the same opinion
          as the professor had on the stories of Rabbah bar bar Chana?
          Obviously, just as they understood the import of the two-headed
          eagle, so did the people of those times understand the
          implications of those stories, which were certainly richer in content
          than the mere description of an eagle. It was because the present
          was so far removed from that epoch that the description seemed
          so absurd to them. Similar approaches had to be adopted towards
          the other Aggadot of the Talmud as 
well. The reply is characteristic
          for R. Israel, and shows his rationalistic bent.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110623/0f9120e1/attachment-0001.htm>

The return of Eliyahu haNavi isn't mentioned in the iqarim nor in the
Moreh. And in fact, in the discussion of mashiach in Hil' Melakhim
(12:2), the Rambam explicitly lists it as among the details that "yeish
min hachamim she'omerim" but we won't know what will really happen until
after it does.

The other mentions of Eliyahu's *return* in the Yad are in dinei manunus,
to say that the person must let the money/item remain unused "ad sheyavo
Eliyahu". (Hitting the Bar Ilan Responsa web site...)

Gezilah va'Aveidah 13:10: Someone who finds an aveidah but tries and fails
to find its owner, munachas etzlos ad sheyavo Eliyahu, and he is chayav
be'achriyu8sah.
ibid 12: ... and therefore he cannot use any such aveidos that aren't
aided with constant use with use ad sheyavo Eliyahu.

Mekhirah 20:2: Someone who bought from one of five people but can't
identify which, the payment munach etzlo ad sheyaho eliyahu. But if he's
a chasid, he should pay each, latzeis yidei Shamayim.

Malveh veLoveh 16:11: If you find a shetar and can't remember if it was
collected, munach ad sheyavo Eliyahu.

So, did the Rambam believe that Eliyahu would necessarily return or not?
And if not, why did he repeat Chazal's idiom?


Li nir'eh, the Rambam felt that the return of Eliyahu hanavi was at least
true on a metaphoric level. The return of nevu'ah. But not within Eliyahu
in particular. Veharaayah...

The last mishnah in Edios says that Eliyahu haNavi will not declare tum'ah
and taharah, but will be a major kiruv worker (and perhaps distance
those who are evil, according to R' Yehoshua but not R' Yehudah). R'
Shim'on says also to resolve machloqes, and the Rambanan say *only*
to bring shalom.

On this the gemara in Qiddushin (71a) is meduyaq that Eliyahu will not
clarify who is a mamzer among people for whom this information is lost.
Kivan shenitme`ah, nitme`ah. (I needed to transliteration the ayin in
that one.)

(R' Chaim Markowitz [CC-ed] recently blogged
<http://nefeshchaim.blogspot.com/2011/06/mamzerim-and-moshiach.html>
that the Ran and the Rama (EhE 2) hold this lemaaseh, that it's assur
for anyone to reveal such information. See there for the machloqes
whether this applies to 2 eidim. It's that blog entry that led to this
train of thought.)

However, turning back to Hil' Melakhim, this time halakhah 3 (right after
asserting that we can't know how it will play out and it's assur to try
to), the Rambam says that the melekh hamashiach will identify who is a kohein,
who is a leivi, which sheivet the rest of us are from, but not to ruin
someone chezqas kashrus to say they are mamzeirim - kivan shenitme`ah
nitme`ah.

IOW, WRT not revealing mamzeirus, the Rambam casts mashiach into the
role chazal gave Eliyahu. I would therefore like to suggest that to
the Rambam, the return of Eliyahu could refer to the return of nevu'ah
in the person of the mashiach.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
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 28, Issue 107
***************************************

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..."