Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 84

Mon, 06 May 2013

• 1. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Joe Slater)
• 2. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: Insights Into Halacha: A Halachic Analysis of the Recent Meat Scandal Ruling (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag BaOmer (Zev Sero)
• 5. Ger Toshav (Doron Beckerman)
• 6. 20th of Sivan (Joe Slater)
• 7. Re: Lag Baomer (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: doresh el hameisim (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: doresh el hameisim (Micha Berger)
• 10. Loeg Larash in front of a non-metzuveh? (Chana Luntz)
• 11. giving land back (saul newman)
• 12. Whey (Was: [Areivim] How the OU Kashrus Division Works) (Yonatan Kaganoff)
• 13. Re: Whey (Was: [Areivim] How the OU Kashrus Division Works) (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Lag Baomer (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Lag Baomer (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. Re: Lag Baomer (Lisa Liel)

R' Luntz wrote:

> once you make the link to Bethane, ie the date half way between the
> equinox and the summer solstice, it becomes hard to believe that this was
> not a much more widespread date at one point, when midsummer and midwinter
> and the equinoxes were the defining points in the pagan calendar.
>

I think you mean Beltane, the Gaelic (i.e., Scottish and Irish) version of
May Day. May Day is widely celebrated in Europe but traditional practices
vary: the references I have skimmed indicate that they didn't typically
celebrate with bonfires. That being said, I suppose that *any* night-time
celebration in the olden days would have involved bonfires - how else would
they supply illumination? And if we are to include solstices, equinoxes and
the mid-points between these days we have eight days of the year that might
be considered significant, and the shifting dates of the Jewish calendar
almost guarantee that one or another pagan date must frequently fall around
any given date of the Jewish calendar. So no, I don't see any particular
correlation between Lag B'Omer and Beltane.

My own theory, for what it's worth, is that it's related to the custom of
playing with bows and arrows and travelling out to the woods. I don't know
whether this really is in memory of R' Akiva's talmidim who joined Bar
Kochba, but what do you do when you travel out to the woods? Why, you make
a fire to keep warm, or cook your food, or just to sit around. So it
doesn't really matter whether the hiking and archery are genuinely folk
memories of Bar Kokhba: any celebration that involves these will almost
inevitably involve bonfires, and people who stay home will light fires (and
perhaps shoot arrows as well) because why should they miss out on the fun?
So presto, a custom to light bonfires is born.

Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130504/2fbb9e7a/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

>Weel I have to say that the likenesses to Bethane are a bit uncanny.  I
know you don't live in a Celtic neck >of the woods, and have never seen it,
but if you ever see the Scots in full flow celebrating Bethane (Mayday) >you
really do start to wonder (especially given the proximity this year, Bethane
was two days after Lag >B'Omer). 

I misspelled the name of the festival, which is Beltane - There are some
pictures from the modern version in Edinburgh ie Beltane 2013 (which these
days attracts all sorts of performers and is a whole formally organised
thing) as printed in a local London paper. The Metro is a London paper given
out free in the mornings, so if you commute by tube (subway) to and from
work, any pictures it displays are likely to be in your face for the half
and hour or hour of your commute, as it is common reading fare for many
other commuters on the tube.  Here is a link to what you might well see if
you were a worker in London. Warning, while most of the figures are pretty
shaded by the fire and darkness, there are definitely women in some of the
pictures, and some of them (both men and women) are not very tzniusdikly
dressed
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/01/gallery-beltane-fire-festival-2013-3708
726/

Shavuah Tov

Chana

On 2/05/2013 12:36 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>   From http://tinyurl.com/ctcjgx7
> [R' Yehudah Spitz on ohr.edu, dated 27-Apr-2013. -micha]


Nice shiur, but unfortunately in a footnote he writes:

> A clear picture of the horrific conditions of Chicago slaughterhouses
> at that time was showcased in Upton Sinclair?s classic ?The Jungle?,
> including a mention of cows ?slaughtered in a certain way? labeled by
> the ?kosher rabbi for the orthodox? (in the same factory as pigs!),
> with nary a mention of distinction between the kosher and non-kosher.

_The Jungle_ was a work of fiction with no basis in reality.  Sinclair
wrote it deliberately as propaganda for the unions, and made no effort at
all to research the facts before writing it.  Every sensational allegation
in the book was false.  I'm not denying that the state of kashrus in
Chicago at the time was terrible, since we know it was from many reliable
sources; but this book is not evidence of that, and R Spitz's citing it as
a source tends to discredit his case.


Also,
>  Pondering Pirush
>  There is a famous Talmudic rule ?Kol D?Pirush M?Ruba KaPirush?.

"Pirush"?!  The first time, I thought this was a typo, but it appears 7
times spelt the same way.  It's odd.  Is it possible that R Spitz spelt it
correct, and the article was then edited by someone who decided to
"correct" the "obvious typo?



-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

For those who are convinced that this must be a vestige of a pagan ritual,
why does the same not apply to the Ashkenazi traditional bonfire on Simchas
Torah?

I am unable to relate to all the issues raised -  it is has been a busy
time for me. I asked R' Chaim Kanievsky Shlit"a in a letter regarding
remizah shelo bederech tzivui for a ger Toshav, as well as whether one
could, bishas hadechak, employ a Ger Toshav as a sachir who would do
melachah on Shabbos. If I understood correctly (since the questions were
lettered, and the lettering in his response is one off, but this is the
only way the answers makes sense) - to the first question he answered that
it is "mistaber" that one can rely on remizah shelo bederech tzivui, and on
the second question he answered "yesh lehakel." He added, though, "chalilah
lismoch alai lemaa'seh al mah she'ani oneh mikufya."

Again, it is possible that there was a misunderstanding, but that is the
best understanding I can make out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130505/f7fa0866/attachment-0001.htm>

RCK asked:

> what exactly happened on the 20th of Sivan in 1944 that is considered the
> beginning of the Holocaust in Hungary? The secular date was 11 June, 1944
> and I do not see that day as bearing any significance in the history of the
> Holocaust.
>

It would be hard to point to any particular date as being *the* start of
the Holocaust in Hungary, and if one date must be chosen then a
pre-existing one is as good as any other. I suppose this time of year was
chosen because it marks the mass deportations of Jews to Auschwitz. They
had in fact started around a month before, but who is to say that this was
known to the people setting the date? People had other things on their mind
at the time.

Joe Slater
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130505/e3aa3452/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

<<< This is suboptimal. We're supposed to have a minhag hamaqom.
We rely on minhag avos only because inheriting minhag hamaqom from the last
place our lineage lived that had one is all we have left. (I have been
questioned on the validity of this assumption, but it seems to me to be a
central thesis of pereq Maqom Shenahagu.) >>>

Suppose it was around the time of Yehoshua or the Shoftim, and a person
from one Shevet moved permanently, with his family, to the territory of
another shevet. Would you say that they need to adopt the practices of
their neighbors, even for private matters? (I'm not disagreeing, just
looking for answers.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
New BlackBerry&#174 Z10
Experience a new way to use your smartphone. Purchase yours today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/518670fbd08e670fb1cf7st04vuc

R' Chaim Manaster wrote:

> I have been under the impression that bechira derives from
> the harkava of the neshama with the guf. Neither capable of
> bechira on their own. The neshama of its own is tehora and
> will make the "right" choice. It is the joining to the guf
> that enables bechira. This is the reason that a meis is
> naseh chofshi min hamitzvos, as he is now not a bal bechira
> anymore since the body and neshama have now been separated.
> Furthermore, if there is no bechira then there can be no
> sechar ve'onesh for "actions" after death. According to RZS,
> the reason for naseh chofshi min  hamitzvos would have no
> rationale and must be a gezeiras hakosuv - mitzvos only
> during life - but bechira and sechar ve'onesh continue after
> life?? 

To me, this sounds like a reasonable analysis of two views, both logical
and self-contained, without any obvious contradictions. Unfortunately, at
this point there's also no evidence or citations offered to support either
side.

I don't see why bechira should be linked to "the harkava of the neshama
with the guf". Rather it seems to me that the nature of bechira is totally
related to the neshama, in the view he ascribes to RZS: Where independent
thought can exist, that's the only prerequisite to free will and free
choice. The body merely carries out the instructions and decisions of the
mind.

R' Joel Rich asked:

> So one who weas a complete rasha bolam hazeh can redeem
> himself after mita by his "actions" in the olam haemet?

I have always wondered whether this is possible, and if not, then why not.
The only answer I've come up with is what RCM describes as a "gezeiras
hakosuv". Or as I might put it: The rasha could certainly *try* to redeem
himself, but he would find that he has missed the deadline. (But I hope
that this is not the case.)

We need to distinguish between two types of LACK of bechira. RCM seems to
be saying that bechira is something which is available only to beings who
have both a neshama and a guf, and therefore a dead person does not have
bechira of any kind. In my view, he can certainly make free-willed choices,
but now that he is in the olam ha'emes, what good are they? Whatever
choices he might choose to make are far past his "bechira-point", and might
not be of any help in redeeming himself.

This is very similar to what R' Zev Sero wrote:

> The whole purpose of mitzvos is to elevate this world and
> refine the sparks that are in it; in Olam Ha'emes there is
> no such thing as mitzvos. Yoshvin venehenin miziv hashchina,
> but for mitzvos one must be in this world.  There's choice,
> but nothing for the choice to act on.  This is unlike
> mal'achim who really have no choice.

and in response to RJR's question, RZS answered:

> I don't see what opportunity he would have to do so.  What
> could he do in Gehenom that would change anything?  But ein
> hachi nami, in principle if he found some way to do something
> positive I don't see why it should not cause a reconsideration
> of his gzar din.

I concede that there's probably no way to wear tzitzis and tefillin in the
Olam Ha'emes. But tefilah and emunah should be possible under any
circumstances that I can think of, provided that (unlike RCM) one's bechira
has not been stripped away.

RCM's view is too depressing for me. It reminds me of Dante passing through
the gate of Hell, which bears the inscription, "Abandon hope, all ye who
enter here." I concede that it is within Hashem's ability to impose a
deadline (such as death) beyond which no more zechuyos will be accepted. 
But I hope that He does not actually do so.

I see a rasha at the gate of Gehenom. All his life, he refused to believe
that it could ever come to this. I would like to believe that he still has
several options available:

He might choose to repent. A total teshuva is clearly impossible, because
his current circumstances are so radically different than before.  But is a
sincere charata impossible? Whatever charata he accomplishes won't be worth
as much as if he had done it before he died, but is it worth *zero*? Isn't
it possible that this "rasha" was only slighty lower than the midpoint, and
this tiny amount of charata might elevate him to be above the midpoint?

A different scenario, a different mitzvah: The rasha is now in the Olam
Ha'emes, and sees his life from a new perspective, understanding things
that he had never understood before. In his previous life, he was a very
bitter person, who deeply hated Hashem. But now he understands, and makes a
conscious choice to thank Hashem and love Him. Is it really too late? 

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
New BlackBerry&#174 Z10
Discover the BlackBerry Z10, built to keep you moving. Get it today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/518663c04f5ba63bf181fst01vuc

On Sun, May 05, 2013 at 01:49:52PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: R' Chaim Manaster wrote:
: > I have been under the impression that bechira derives from
: > the harkava of the neshama with the guf. Neither capable of
: > bechira on their own. The neshama of its own is tehora and
: > will make the "right" choice. It is the joining to the guf
: > that enables bechira...

...
: I don't see why bechira should be linked to "the harkava of the neshama
: with the guf". Rather it seems to me that the nature of bechira is totally
: related to the neshama...

The Meshekh Chokhmah says so explicitly, that the tzelem E-lokim
is bechirah, and thus is the nishmas chayim that HQBH breathed
into Adam.

But, as RAM wrote:
: We need to distinguish between two types of LACK of bechira. RCM
: seems to be saying that bechira is something which is available only to
: beings who have both a neshama and a guf, and therefore a dead person
: does not have bechira of any kind. In my view, he can certainly make
: free-willed choices, but now that he is in the olam ha'emes, what good
: are they? Whatever choices he might choose to make are far past his
: "bechira-point", and might not be of any help in redeeming himself.

Much like the question of whether mal'akhim lack bechirah in principle
(Rambam), or have the ability to make choices but no face no real choices
to make (Or Sameiach, Hil' Teshuvah, "HaKol Tzafui").

RGStudent summarized other opinions WRT mal'akhim collected by R Chaim
Friedlander (Sifsei Chaim - Pirkei Emunah Uvechirah vol. II pp. 142-157)
at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n015.shtml#02>.)

In any case, I'm inclined to agree with RAM: the potential for choice
exists with the neshamah, or with the neshamah's transformation of
the nefesh, but there is no opportunity to excercise it without the
tension provided by the guf.

See the two opinions in the Ramban on "vayipach be'apav nishmas chaim",
as to whether the nishmas chaim is in addition to the animal soul,
or it transformed it in kind.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 40th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Yesod: When does
Fax: (270) 514-1507      reliability/self-control mean submitting to others?

RMB writes:

>Today I went to the visitation. Before entering the funeral home, I tucked
in my tzitzis. Seeing myself run >through the habit made me wonder...

>Is there lo'eg larash in my wearing my tzitzis out on such an occasion (the
co worker and her son are >nakhriim)?

>First I thought: Well, the meis wasn't mechuyav in tzitzis, so no.

>But then I thought: Neither would be a Bas Yisrael, and we tuck in our
tzitzis then.

Eeek, I thought somebody else would chime in, but it appears that nobody
has.

The Mishna Brura siman 23 si'if katan 5 writes that there is no obligation
to tuck tzitzis in for the kever (or meis) of a woman (as opposed to a
katan) since because in her life she was exempt from tzitzis, there is not
in this loeg l'rosh.

Now admittedly the Mishna Brura brings this based on the Pri Megadim, and
the Pri Megadim bases himself on the teshuva of the Meharitz, which
(apparently according to the Yalkut Yosef) he did not see inside, and based
himself on the short form brought by the Eliyahu Raba, and if you actually
see the teshuva of the Meharitz inside he gives reason to be machmir also by
the grave of a woman (see the summary in the Yalkut Yosef Tzitzit v'Tephilin
Haerot siman 23 oit 3).  But the reasons given by the Meharitz regarding why
one should tuck in tzitzis for a katan are fourfold: (a) if he had reached
majority then he would have become obligated, and it was only because he
died that he did not do so; (b) because perhaps he was the gilgul of the
soul of an adult; (c) lo plug; and (d) for those who see.

And as the Yalkut Yosef points out, while (a) and (b) don't apply to a
woman, (c) and (d) do, and hence what the Pri Megadim ended up writing was
the opposite of the position of the Meharitz.

But note what these reasons do not include anything that might relate to:

>Does a nakhri who wears tzitzis any different than a bas yisrael who
fulfills a mitzvah asei shehazman gerama? >Does it make a difference whether
they proclaimed themselves geirei toshav before a beis din?
>Are there gradations, or are all instances of eino metzuveh ve'oseh
identical?

Now it is noteworthy that the Tzlach in Brachos 3b and 18a holds that loeg
l'rosh does apply to women, but he appears to derive it from a gemora (or
actually a juxtaposition of gemoros), and so quotes the Piskei Teshuva in
Yoreh Deah siman 367 contrasting it to the Meharitz (ie which suggests that
he also only had the short form summary).  But the Tzlach does not deal with
the philosophy as to why it might be that loeg l'rosh applies to women, only
some fancy analysis as to why this needs to be derived from the gemora.  So
while one might speculate regarding an idea of graduations regarding mitzvos
eno metzuvah ve'oseh (as some people do regarding the obligations of an eved
kn'ani versus a woman - I think I and others had a discussion on this on
Avodah some time ago - was it not quoted in the name of RYBS on this list as
having argued for such a distinction?) - and some of the discussions
regarding the use of "vitzivanu" in brochos made by women (to the extent
that you allow such brochos to be made by women) is of relevance to perhaps
explain the philosophy behind the Tzlach's gemora logic, you are already
into heavy machlokus territory before you get anywhere near nakhrim.

>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Regards

Chana

http://www.scribd.com/doc/139562709/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7
%91-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%98%D7%A0%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%96%D7%A8%D7
%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%98%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9D
[or <http://j.mp/10e4qFO>]
rav hutner's  chiddush

I was merely responding to R. Dr. Yitzchak Levine's original extensive
quote.

Butter was used as an example in Timothy Lytton's book Kosher of a product
that previously did not require any hashgacha, but because of changes in
manufacturing process now require an hashgacha.

What has changed? Now butter can be made from whey.

I noted that according to RMF zt"l, whey did not require an hashgacha and
therefore butter should still not require an hashgacha.

To state the obvious, both R. Blech and the OU have a significant financial
stake in claiming that butter (and countless other products) can only be
purchased with reliable hashgachah. Additionally, the RCA gets an annual
payoff from the OU Kosher division (as per a longstanding arrangement) so
RCA Rabbanim also have a strong incentive to to claim that products can
only be purchased with a reliable hashgachah.

Again, assuming that RMF zt"l is the *posek hador*, why should butter only
be purchased with a reliable hashgachah?

Which raised questions as to what degree is Timothy Lytton's book Kosher
merely repeating the Kosher industry's party line?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130505/c799f437/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/05/2013 9:03 PM, Yonatan Kaganoff wrote:
> I was merely responding to R. Dr. Yitzchak Levine's original extensive quote.
>
> Butter was used as an example in Timothy Lytton's book Kosher of a
> product that previously did not require any hashgacha, but because of
> changes in manufacturing process now require an hashgacha.
>
> What has changed? Now butter can be made from whey.

And from proteins recovered from the water in which non-kosher cheese is
cooked.

> I noted that according to RMF zt"l, whey did not require an hashgacha
> and therefore butter should still not require an hashgacha.

However he doesn't address the issue of the water.  While it seems strange
to say that milk (which itself requires a heter) in which treife cheese has
been cooked is OK, but plain water is not, it would take some work to extend
the logic of RMF's heter for the former to the latter.  I can see an argument
that could be made in that direction, but none of us can be sure that RMF
would have bought it.

> Again, assuming that RMF zt"l is the /posek hador/,

No, he is not.  He was one of the most prominent poskim of the last dor,
but far from the only one.   In this case RSW disagrees with him, and the
OU has chosen to pasken like him, using RMF's heter only as a snif to be
lenient in the temperature of yad soledes.




-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 5/5/2013 9:46 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R' Micha Berger wrote:
>
> <<<  This is suboptimal. We're supposed to have a minhag
> hamaqom. We rely on minhag avos only because inheriting minhag hamaqom
> from the last place our lineage lived that had one is all we have
> left. (I have been questioned on the validity of this assumption, but
> it seems to me to be a central thesis of pereq Maqom
> Shenahagu.)>>>
>
> Suppose it was around the time of Yehoshua or the Shoftim, and a
> person from one Shevet moved permanently, with his family, to the
> territory of another shevet. Would you say that they need to adopt the
> practices of their neighbors, even for private matters? (I'm not
> disagreeing, just looking for answers.)
>    

We should distinguish between minhagei halakha and cultural minhagim.  
In terms of minhagei halakha, there weren't different ones from shevet 
to shevet.  So long as the Sanhedrin existed (and wasn't co-opted by 
Sadducees), the system was such that halakha was uniform throughout Klal 
Yisrael.

So variant minhagei halakha only came into existence when the Sanhedrin 
fell into the hands of those who denied the mesorah.  Comparisons 
between the time of Yehoshua and our time don't work for this.

But yes, people who were expelled from Spain and went to European 
countries became Ashkenazim in practice.

Lisa

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:

> We should distinguish between minhagei halakha and cultural
> minhagim. In terms of minhagei halakha, there weren't
> different ones from shevet to shevet.  So long as the
> Sanhedrin existed (and wasn't co-opted by Sadducees), the
> system was such that halakha was uniform throughout Klal
> Yisrael.
> So variant minhagei halakha only came into existence when
> the Sanhedrin fell into the hands of those who denied the
> mesorah.  Comparisons between the time of Yehoshua and our
> time don't work for this.

Other than pure luck (a/k/a hashgacha), I don't know what could prevent
such variances. Suppose a question arises in one shevet, and their beis din
comes up with an answer that satisfies everyone, it will stop right there,
and the Sanhedrin might never even hear that the question arose. Yet, the
exact same question might arise in another shevet, and be answered
differently there.

And no one will ever know about the difference, unless a visitor happens to
encounter the situation, either in learning or in practice, and mentions it
to one of the locals.

(This is very similar, I think, to the two separate Masorahs held by men
and women, where women had spent thousands of years outside the Beis
Medrash, learning halacha l'maaseh only from their mothers. Consider the
possibility that a certain situation (in kashrus, nida, or whatever) may
have been "paskened" a certain way among the women, and differently among
the men, and -- because the women did not learn the seforim -- no one would
ever know unless it happened to come up in conversation. This question had
bothered me for many years, but it was answered to my satisfaction in
footnote 18 of	R' Haym Soloveitchik's "Rupture and Reconstruction".)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5187d3b9eeed153b973f1st04vuc

On 5/6/2013 10:59 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> R"n Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> We should distinguish between minhagei halakha and cultural
>> minhagim. In terms of minhagei halakha, there weren't
>> different ones from shevet to shevet.  So long as the
>> Sanhedrin existed (and wasn't co-opted by Sadducees), the
>> system was such that halakha was uniform throughout Klal
>> Yisrael.
>> So variant minhagei halakha only came into existence when
>> the Sanhedrin fell into the hands of those who denied the
>> mesorah.  Comparisons between the time of Yehoshua and our
>> time don't work for this.
>>      
> Other than pure luck (a/k/a hashgacha), I don't know what could
> prevent such variances. Suppose a question arises in one shevet, and
> their beis din comes up with an answer that satisfies everyone, it
> will stop right there, and the Sanhedrin might never even hear that
> the question arose. Yet, the exact same question might arise in
> another shevet, and be answered differently there.
>    

But if I understand correctly, a local or regional beit din wasn't 
empowered to "figure out" the halakha.  If someone invented a zipper, 
they couldn't say, "Hmm... is this tefira or isn't it?"  If they didn't 
have an exact mesora for that exact case, they had to take it up the 
line.  Only the Sanhedrin was able to be creative in the way that 
rabbanim have become accustomed to doing.

If that's the case, and I think it is, I don't see how such a situation 
would be likely to happen.  With lots of people learning, if a beit din 
couldn't show why it ruled a particular way (Jews being a somewhat 
argumentative folk), I don't see it happening.

> And no one will ever know about the difference, unless a visitor
> happens to encounter the situation, either in learning or in practice,
> and mentions it to one of the locals.
>
> (This is very similar, I think, to the two separate Masorahs held by
> men and women, where women had spent thousands of years outside the
> Beis Medrash, learning halacha l'maaseh only from their mothers.
> Consider the possibility that a certain situation (in kashrus, nida,
> or whatever) may have been "paskened" a certain way among the women,
> and differently among the men, and -- because the women did not learn
> the seforim -- no one would ever know unless it happened to come up in
> conversation. This question had bothered me for many years, but it was
> answered to my satisfaction in footnote 18 of  R' Haym Soloveitchik's
> "Rupture and Reconstruction".)
>    

But again, that's post-Sanhedrin.

Lisa



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 84
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)