Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 161

Mon, 15 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Do Women Need To Hear Eicha? (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: "God who knows the future" (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. "God who knows the future" (David Riceman)
• 4. Seeking source: Rav Hirsch on the Churban (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: hayom yom rishon.... (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Characterizing our era (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: "God who knows the future" (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: hayom yom rishon.... (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: hayom yom rishon.... (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Seeking source: Rav Hirsch on the Churban (Joel C. Salomon)
• 12. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: havdallah, and other berachos (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: hayom yom rishon.... (Micha Berger)
• 18. Minhag Avos and Minhag haMakom (Micha Berger)
• 19. Re: greek logic and its beauty vis a vis torah logic.... (Micha Berger)

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 05:34:12PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : RZS writes:
> :> Af hein hayu be'otah pur`anut.  If there were a "chiyuv" on men then
> :> should logically apply to women too.
> 
> : This assumes that (a) the af hein b'oto hanes is a principle of logic
that
> : we can apply to circumstances other than those listed in the gemara and
(b)
> : that there exists a flipside principle of af hein hayu be'otah puranut.

And RMB replied:

> Or at least minhagically, women felt they ought to be there because
> women went through it to and lemaaseh, enough have been going to Eikhah to
> create such a minhag.
> 
> This isn't rabbinic legislation, where the logic is necessarily so
> rigorous, nor necessarily the cause as opposed to post-facto validation
> of existing practice.

I don't think that the whole discussion between RZS and myself makes any
sense if we are indeed (as he and I agree) talking about a minhag.  If the
minhag is that women go, then that is the minhag, and if they don't it is
not.  The problem identified with the psak halacha cited in the name of RMS
was (a) a statement that women are included in all the halachos of aveilut
on Tisha B'Av (which means that it is not just a matter of minhag, but
rabbinic obligation, the obligation to engage in aveilus on Tisha B'Av being
rabbinic) and (b) that therefore women ought to make a point of going to
Eicha or reading it at home for herself if she cannot go hear it, even
though nobody has ever heard of such a minhag (suggesting that indeed RMS
understood the obligation to hear Eicha to be rabbinic).  We were thus
debating the question of on what basis one could assert that women are
included in all the (rabbinic) mitzvos aseh of Tisha B'Av.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

R' David Riceman wrote:

> I want to critique RAM's (and possibly also RMB's) position more
> generally.  Naively, when I say "I have free will", I mean that I
> could have written either "say" or "write" in that previous
> sentence, and that it is I who determine which of those happens.
> When we say that ten years ago someone could predict which of
> those would happen, we need to redefine "free will".
>
> I know of two options.  One is Spinoza's - - my will is free
> because I intended to write "say".  The other is from the Kuzari
> (5:20): no discernible causal chain induced me to write "say"
> (see Heshek Shlomoh al HaKuzari p. 520 s.v. "b'li hechreichi").
> The problem with the first solution (which I think is RAM's) is
> that God created my intention.  The problem with the second is
> that it redefines free will beyond recognition - - not that
> either thing can happen, but that I don't understand why what
> happened was inevitable.

It seems to me that these two paragraphs concern two unrelated questions.
The first paragraph is about whether or not HaShem's knowledge of [what we
perceive as] the future robs us of a truly free ability to choose for
ourselves what we will do in that future. The second seems to be about
determinism, and whether we can truly make any choices at all, or whether
our choices are predetermined by the sum total of our past.

Interesting comparison -- both about causality, but one is whether our
present is caused by the future, and the other about whether our present is
caused by the past.

My understanding is that this thread is about the former, and I plan to
submit another post about it soon. Regarding the latter, I'd suggest
referring to the archives, in a thread titled "Free Will vs. Physics" from
Volume 25, about thre years ago.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e490219c8af0646345st05vuc

RZL:

<<It's p. 194, not 195, lines 1-5.>>

Thanks.

I agree that these demonstrate that for the Ramban God knows the future 
as well as particulars (see Chavel's note on the passage you just 
cited).  What I 'd like to know is the mechanism.  What, according to 
the Ramban, is the future, and what does knowing particulars imply about 
God's simplicity and about human free will?

<<--only in the same way the Rambam does: that Hashem makes nature react 
favorably or unfavorably in response to man's actions.>>

If the word "only" were removed this would be correct.  As it stands 
it's wrong.  See Ramban on Shoftim 18:9 (ed. Chavel p. 427, starting 
around line 9 "v'ata da v'haven").  Once you read it you'll understand 
my question about mechanism.

David Riceman

At 05:24 AM 8/15/2011, R. Joel C. Salomon wrote:

>I found the quote in the Isaac Levy translation of R' Mendel Hirsch's
>Haphtoros, in the introduction to Haftora of Chazon Yeshayahu.  Dr. Levy
>also included Rav Hirsch's essay, which is how I conflated them.
>
>Follow-up question:  Is the concept I mentioned above ("The Jew mourns
>not that the Temple was destroyed, but that it had to be") anywhere
>*explicit* in Rav Hirsch's writings, or is that his son's interpretation?
>
>--Chesky

If it is anywhere, I would think that it would be one of his essays 
on the month of Av in Volume I of the Collected Writings of RSRH.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110815/42cd7b86/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:53:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Definitely not. The name actually means son of the sun in Sumerian.

> Which part means what?

I thought it was from the Sumerian Dumu+zid = faithful (dumu) son (zid),
which got shortened by the time we got to Bavel to "Dumuzi", the month
being "Dumuzu" = Dumuzi's month. Both became "Tammuz" in Aramaic,
kayadua'.

While the /name/ does not (to my recollection) tell you who Tammuz was
supposed to be the faithful son of, he was thanked when crops were good,
and his reappearance from the underworld was believed to be the cause
of spring and summer. Which might explain why the first month of summer
was allegedly his month.

(Tammuz is part of a long list of parallels: Osiris [Egypt], Baal
[Canaan], Tammuz, Adonis [Phoenicia, then Greece]. All are deities of
rebirth and vegetation.)

...
>> Which doesn't help us much if we don't know what that heter is.

> We don't need to know the heter in order to do the same as they did.

But we don't know the parameters of what they did. Which gods' names
are okay, and which not? And we do know that most usages are assur.

Mordechai went around being called by a tribute to Marduk, Hadasah went
by a name taken after Ishar (Mrs Tammuz, paralleling Isis, Asheirah,
and Aphrodite). Would you deduce from this that it's appropriate to
have little boys running around named Christopher Weiss?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 11:49:46PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: what is the history of the berachos that we have, including the shemone
: esre, [the extra] v'malshinim, the shabbas candles bracha, chanukah candles
: bracha, matza bracha on pesache, etc, 
: 
: do they all have the same validity as the original shemone esre?

The original Shemuneh Esrei was arranged by AKhG, as RZS already wrote,
but the actual blessings we say were coined by the tannaim. Which makes
them not much older than the insertion of Velameshumadim. (Which was
then toned down to "Velamalshinim" mishum eivah.) The decision of where
to put Havdalah in benching was also resolved by tannaim.

One thing you quickly notice after learning Mes' Berakhos in both shasin
is that in EY they had many more and more specific berakhos than in Bavel.
(E.g. R' Chaggai says Rebbe made a "borei minei nefashos" before meat
and eggs, more berakhos on different smells, etc...) We follow the Bavliim.

But the concept of making a berakhah before and after food or before
doing a mitzvah, rather than the particular berakhos we make when these
opportunities arise, also predates the tannaim.

The only question of legitimacy is after the gemara, because the Rosh
says that no such berakhos exist, and yet we have berakhos that do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 09:01:29PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Consider the comparison **you've** made between the Tur and the MB:
: The Tur (and it's relatives, such as the SA) were the standard-bearers for
: centuries. The a major upheaval occurred, in which a new standard-bearer
: appeared (the MB), which focused only on a particular section of the
: prior one, concentrating on those halachos considered most relevant for
: the times.

But YD, EhE and CM aren't any less relevant.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:24:00AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
>> I have no idea what they mean by lemaalah min hazeman

> A contemporary physicist would translate "time is an emergent phenomenon".

Although a contemporary physicist might not consider time to be emergent
(depending on which theory of quantum gravity he backs), a rishon wouldn't
be thinking in terms of "emergent phenomena".

Translation: emergent phenomenon = a feature of the system that emerges
from how the parts are combined, rather than being tracable to the
attributes of the parts.

Yes, it may be accurate in this case to translate the word "attribute"
in Aristo's conception of time as an attribute of process to time
as a phenomenon. (Aristo was a strict reductionist; the thought of
understanding something in ways other than analyzing the parts wouldn't
have crossed a classicalist's mind.)

Rishonim might have described *zeman* that way had they been introduced
to the concept of "emergent phenomena", it doesn't describe the "lemaalah
min". I figure it's something along the lines of: Since HQBH doesn't
change or move, He isn't in any processes and therefore time doesn't
apply.

>> In our worldview, time is a context, a dimension, in which processes  
>> occur.

> I don't know what you mean by "we", paleface! It's true that physicists  
> model physical phenomena that way...

The common people do. Open an organizer, or Outlook. Time is arranged in
a line down the page. The first step along these lines was the shift from
solar hours to our standardized average one. Farmers would treat a day as
running from before down to after dusk -- process based. We have points
on a line -- 6am to 11pm. I am speaking Existentially, not intellectually;
it's how we live with time, regardless of how we think about it.

>> Everyone (except the Ralbag and some outliers most of us never heard  
>> of) holds that G-d knows everything in every detail.

> This shabbos I came across Ibn Daud in HaEmunah HaRama 2:6:2 cited in  
> Wolfson "Repercussions of the Kalam in Jewish Philosophy", p. 217, note 
> 15.

Ibn Daud, like the Ralbag, is more Aristotilian than the Rambam or R'
Saadia Gaon. I am not sure ID even believed in yeish mei'ayin!

...
> Now look at Ta'anis 8b, cited l'halacha in H. Berachos 10:22.  "Someone  
> who goes to measure his harvest prays "May it be Your will, O God, to  
> send a blessing <why not "to bless"?> in the works of my hand". ... if  
> he measured and then prayed it is a false prayer." (I translated the  
> Rambam, not the gemara)

> Why doesn't this prayer request a causal loop? He's already finished  
> harvesting -- the amount of grain is determined....

Because nothing really exists until measured. Not in a Quantum Mechanical
sense, I am not ascribing Chazal that kind of knowledge of physics -- just
Kantian philosophy. In a philosophical one -- we do not / cannot know
the world as it is, only the world as we observe it.

IOW, the blessing between harvest and measuring can only change within
the margin of error of human guestimation of crop yeild.

> I want to critique RAM's (and possibly also RMB's) position more  
> generally.  Naively, when I say "I have free will", I mean that I could  
> have written either "say" or "write" in that previous sentence, and that  
> it is I who determine which of those happens.  When we say that ten  
> years ago someone could predict which of those would happen, we need to  
> redefine "free will".

G-d doesn't "predict", since that implies being able to know someone's
decision based on the inputs -- perfectly accurate description requires
assuming the system is algorithmic. But in any case...

The core of my position is that HQBH wasn't there in "10 years ago"
to Know then what I will decide now. He doesn't know the future,
because He has no present. He just Knows.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 15/08/2011 9:10 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Which doesn't help us much if we don't know what that heter is.
>> >  We don't need to know the heter in order to do the same as they did.
> But we don't know the parameters of what they did. Which gods' names
> are okay, and which not?

The ones they used must be muttar.  But it is precisely my point that
the fact that they used them is not, as the OP asserted, a heter.  It's
merely proof that some heter exists for these particular names.  If we
knew what it was, we could extend it to others.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 8/14/2011 10:53 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 14/08/2011 11:44 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> On 8/14/2011 1:07 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> On 14/08/2011 3:10 AM, Harvey Benton wrote:

>>>> i was told that the reason we are allowed to use the babylonian
>>>> names of
>>>> our months (although) they (10 of 12) were names of babylonian gods

>>> AFAIK only one is the name of a god, and it's one that's named in Tanach
>>> so it's OK. In any case, I suspect that the god was named after the
>>> month (or both after the same other thing) rather than the other way
>>> around.

>> Definitely not. The name actually means son of the sun in Sumerian.

> Which part means what?

DUMU is Sumerian for son.  ZI or ZI(D) (there's some different of 
opinion as to whether the D sometimes found at the end of the word is 
part of it, or just a grammatical thing) means true.  I confused Dumuzi 
with the Sumerian for Marduk (AMAR.UTU).  So it isn't actually son of 
the sun, but rather "the true son".


On 8/15/2011 8:10 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:53:01PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> Definitely not. The name actually means son of the sun in Sumerian.

>> Which part means what?

> I thought it was from the Sumerian Dumu+zid = faithful (dumu) son (zid),
> which got shortened by the time we got to Bavel to "Dumuzi", the month
> being "Dumuzu" = Dumuzi's month. Both became "Tammuz" in Aramaic,
> kayadua'.

You're right about the meaning, but you have the translations reversed. 

DUMU in Sumerian is rendered as banu in Akkadian, which is cognate to 
our ben.  Dumuzi is an Akkadian (Assyrian/Babylonian) transliteration of 
DUMU.ZI(D), while Dumuzu is the same name in nominative case.  To the 
Akkadian ear, Dumuzi sounds like it's the object of a preposition 
(genitive), even though the final vowel is part of the name.

>> We don't need to know the heter in order to do the same as they did.

> But we don't know the parameters of what they did. Which gods' names
> are okay, and which not? And we do know that most usages are assur.

> Mordechai went around being called by a tribute to Marduk, Hadasah went
> by a name taken after Ishar (Mrs Tammuz, paralleling Isis, Asheirah,
> and Aphrodite). Would you deduce from this that it's appropriate to
> have little boys running around named Christopher Weiss?

Why not?  We have children named Dennis or Denise, both of which come 
from Dionysus.  The Yiddish name Feivush/Feivel (and the English name 
Phoebe) both come from Phoebus Apollo.  We don't use names like Chris 
because we have a particular aversion to Christianity.  Not because it's 
a name sourced in Avodah Zara.

Lisa

On 08/15/2011 07:59 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 05:24 AM 8/15/2011, R. Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>> Follow-up question:  Is the concept I mentioned above ("The Jew mourns
>> not that the Temple was destroyed, but that it had to be") anywhere
>> *explicit* in Rav Hirsch's writings, or is that his son's interpretation?
> 
> If it is anywhere, I would think that it would be one of his essays on
> the month of Av in Volume I of the Collected Writings of RSRH.

That was where I looked first.  A quick read-through did not turn up
that exact idea, so I hoped one of the Hirschians on the list might have
a better mar?ah makom.

--Chesky

On 15/08/2011 9:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The original Shemuneh Esrei was arranged by AKhG, as RZS already wrote,
> but the actual blessings we say were coined by the tannaim.

Are you saying that even the brachos themselves, i.e. the endings, are
not from the AKhG?

BTW, was the Knesset Hagedolah a standing body, a 120-member super-
sanhedrin, which eventually decreased by attrition to the standard 71?
Or was it a one-time event, like the Knessios Gedolos of the Agudah,
or like the Philadelphia convention that wrote the USA constitution,
a convention that met for perhaps a few years and then disbanded, its
work done?


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:24:03AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> BTW, was the Knesset Hagedolah a standing body, a 120-member super-
> sanhedrin, which eventually decreased by attrition to the standard 71?
> Or was it a one-time event, like the Knessios Gedolos of the Agudah,
> or like the Philadelphia convention that wrote the USA constitution,
> a convention that met for perhaps a few years and then disbanded, its
> work done?

I think it was a multigenerational period of the Sanhedrin running from
around Purim -- empowered by "qiymu veqiblu haYdhudim" until Shim'on
haTzadiq's generation (as in Avos 1:2). "Imeihem kamah nevi'im",
so their rulings are at times diverei soferim rather than a regular
derabbanan. They are thus different in authority to tannaim.

There are two candidates for Shim'on haTzadiq, both Shim'on ben Hanniya.
One lived either 310-291 or 300-273 BCE, the other -- 219-199 BCE. Even
if we place Ezra during Artaxerxes II, among the latest possibilities,
he would still be no later than 359 BCE. There is no way they could
have met -- the latest possibility for Ezra and the newest for Shim'on
haTzadiq are still 49 years apart (plus Shim'on haTzadiq's youth).

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

On 8/15/2011 10:14 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:24:03AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> BTW, was the Knesset Hagedolah a standing body, a 120-member super-
>> sanhedrin, which eventually decreased by attrition to the standard 71?
>> Or was it a one-time event, like the Knessios Gedolos of the Agudah,
>> or like the Philadelphia convention that wrote the USA constitution,
>> a convention that met for perhaps a few years and then disbanded, its
>> work done?
>
> I think it was a multigenerational period of the Sanhedrin running from
> around Purim -- empowered by "qiymu veqiblu haYdhudim" until Shim'on
> haTzadiq's generation (as in Avos 1:2). "Imeihem kamah nevi'im",
> so their rulings are at times diverei soferim rather than a regular
> derabbanan. They are thus different in authority to tannaim.

I always heard that.  That there were 120 members from its inception 
until its end, but never more than 71 at any one time.

> There are two candidates for Shim'on haTzadiq, both Shim'on ben Hanniya.
> One lived either 310-291 or 300-273 BCE, the other -- 219-199 BCE. Even
> if we place Ezra during Artaxerxes II, among the latest possibilities,
> he would still be no later than 359 BCE. There is no way they could
> have met -- the latest possibility for Ezra and the newest for Shim'on
> haTzadiq are still 49 years apart (plus Shim'on haTzadiq's youth).

By Hanniya do you mean Chonyo?  That's a diminutive of Yochanan.  The 
fact that Josephus tells the same story about Yaddua that Chazal tell 
about Shimon HaTzaddik (with Alexander and the visions) suggests that 
Shimon HaTzaddik was Yaddua.

And of course, the dates you're given assume that Chazal's understanding 
of the chronology of Bayit Sheni is wrong, and the Greeks got it right. 
  Because according to Chazal, Ezra came to Eretz Yisrael in the 7th 
year of Artaxerxes/Darius the Persian, and Alexander was the one who 
defeated that king in his 36th year.  Which puts Ezra and Shimon a 
maximum of 29 years apart.

Lisa

On 15/08/2011 11:32 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> I always heard that.  That there were 120 members from its inception until its end, but never more than 71 at any one time.

If the KhG never numbered more than 71, then how is it greater bechochma
*uveminyan* than any subsequent sanhedrin?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:01:51PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> If the KhG never numbered more than 71, then how is it greater bechochma
> *uveminyan* than any subsequent sanhedrin?

Minyan hatalmidim shebayeshivah - Bartenura (Edios 1:5)

There is a logical problem with Shemaya veAvtalyon being one of the zugos,
since that means that those two geirim were dayanim in the Sanhedrin, and
one, the av beis din. One suggestion is that while they contributed to the
discussion and ran the court, they weren't voting members.

I mention this because the otion of non-voting members is another way
two Sanhedrins could have 71 members, and yet still be larger in terms
of who contributed to those 71 people reaching their consensus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 09:32:05AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Why not?  We have children named Dennis or Denise, both of which come  
> from Dionysus.  The Yiddish name Feivush/Feivel (and the English name  
> Phoebe) both come from Phoebus Apollo....

BTW, add Isidore (Isis + adore) and Isibelle (Isis + belle=beauty) to the
list. And since I'm reprising things we said in 2009, lets ad the biblical
names Ehud (which Lisa told us was "Sumerian for House of Shamash (E.UD),
where Shamash was their sun deity), and the name Anat (a Canaanite deity)
in Shamgar ben Anat.


Even though there is a difference between a god who is currently widely
worshipped and one that is basically defunct (+/- some oddballs),
I really think these names would still be assur if the gods involved
were still remembered by the masses such that people associated them
with their origins.

A person who today names their daughter Esther (or did some 21 yrs ago)
is thinking of Grandma Esther, of hesteir panim, or the like. The origins
are lost.

Unlike Christopher, where the association is still common knowledge.


BTW, notice that the fifth thing lists in the mishnah (Taanis 4:6) of
the calamities that occured on 17 beTammuz was the introduction of a
tzelem into the heikhal. According to the gemara (28b) this was during
bayis rishon. (Citing Daniyel 12:11 and 9:27.)

To me it seems significant about AKhG telling us to call the month in
which this happened a name that brings AZ into the calendar. (Even if
I can't say /how/ it's significant.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

A recent gemara, Yerushalmi Pesachim 4:1, vilna 26a, discusses minhagim.
One case is when the fishermen of Tiveria were exiled to the Mediterranean
coast. They had a custom not to fish on chol hamo'ed, or not to fish
using the more aruous tools. (After all, people like having fish on the
last day of y"t -- the minhag as originally described would minimize
simchas y"t!) So they asked rebbe who pasqened for them that they had
to preserve their minhag.

The gemara doesn't tell us if there already were fishermen on the
Mediterranian coast, but I don't know of a period in history where there
wasn't. Thus they were keeping minhag avos over minhag hamaqom. Maybe
they had their own little enclave.

The gemara is clear that minhag avos is an inherited neder, and since they
didn't make the neder, they can't get a hatarah.

Also, if you look further down the amud, you'll see R' Yochanan holds that
bal tisgodedu doesn't apply to minhagim, only to conflicts in pesaq. And,
bal tisgodedu isn't just one shul or shekhunah -- it includes having
different pesaqim in Yehudah and the Galil!

In any case, accoring to RY, there is little motivation to abandon
minhag avos even when entering a place with a different and established
minhag hamaqom.

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

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 01:55:54PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: my question is, is the methodology of greek knowledge in their use of
: logic (modus ponens, modus tolens, etc), better than ours (eg, kal v'chomer??)

Modus ponens, modus tollens and syllogisms are sevara. Derashah isn't
sevarah. In fact, if something is provable by sevarah, the gemara will
ask "lamah li qera, sevara hi" -- logic supercedes the need to darshen
from pesuqim.

Given that Chazal do call qal vachomer a middah shehatorah nidreshes
bahem, the question becomes how it differs from a fortiori reasoning.
I tried to answer that on the 3rd, in the second part of the post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n148.shtml#16>. I suggested that
while the a fortiori part is itself sevara, that is not the entirety of
a qal vachomer.


FWIW, Chazal's logic better describes cases with more than two options.
A tenai requires statement in both the positive and negative. Which is
redundant if your only two possibilities are tall and not tall. But if
the opposite of tall is short, with average-sized in between, you do
need to be explicit whether you mean tall or not-short.

It also better handles questions of the human condition in which the law
of excluded middle doesn't hold -- where something and its opposite can
both be true, each in their own ways.

For describing the topics Torah addresses, it's better suited. For
describing empirical reality (above the quantum level), Greek logic is
better suited. A true "Yaft E-lokim leYefes, veyishkon be'ohalei Sheim."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 161
***************************************

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..."