Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 8

Wed, 15 Jan 2014

• 1. Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Eating Fruit on Tu Bishvat (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Food for thought or Manna from Heaven (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 5. army service [israel] (saul newman)
• 6. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Marty Bluke)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Eitan Levy)
• 12. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Marty Bluke)
• 13. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Micha Berger)

At 04:00 PM 1/13/2014, R. Marty Bluke wrote:

(I am moving this discussion from Areivim to Avodah.)


>As the Daf Yomi plows through Yoma it is very obvious that the 
>Tannaim and Amoraim were missing major pieces of information 
>regarding the set up of the Beis Hamikdash, the daily avoda, and the 
>Yom Kippur Avoda. There are disputes galore about historical facts, 
>some examples that pop into my head, there is a machlokes Tannaim 
>was there 1 curtain separating the kodesh hakodashim from the 
>Heichal or 2. There is a 3 way machlokes about the path that the 
>Kohen Gadol took to go to the Kodesh Hakodishim, there are various 
>disputes about the order of teh Avoda and how the Kohen Gadol did 
>the Avodas Haketores on Yom Kippur. We see clearly that the Tannaim 
>and Amoraim had no mesora on these issues and were trying to 
>recreate the facts based on sevara and pesukim.
>
>If this is the case regarding the Avoda why would it no apply to 
>other parts of Torah as well. Take for example the medrashim about 
>the Avos. Why should we think that Chazal had a better mesora about 
>the Avos then they did about the beis Hamikdash? Of course the same 
>could be said about halacha as well. The bottom line is that we see 
>from the Gemara itself how fragile the mesora was and how much was lost.

According to RSRH,  there is no need to take midrashim 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)

In light of this,  I see no need to the medrashim as being literally true.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140113/8e3fdcf4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 06:18:16AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/mv3m4fj
...
> Creativity in connection with Tu Bishvat did not stop with the  
> kabbalists' seder [a ritual modeled on that of Passover]...

The question of whether Chemdas Yamim and whether it's legitimate Qabbalah
or Sabbatean is an old recurring topic here. Usually comes up around
Elul, as the details of our version of the minhag of saying LeDavid
(twice a day and after Aleinu) originate in the CY. Which has led some
Chassidishe qehillos to reject the minhag.

Here though, the seder is definitely from CY, and the only question is
the kashrus of the source.

See http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/02/is-tu-beshevat-sabbatian-holiday.
html

Caveat: Some (including Philologos) use this incorrectly, to imply
that the entire shift from fiscal new year for orchards to holiday is
questionable. No, there are earlier sources for celebrating it in ways
other than a seder. R Dan Rabinowitz, in the above linked blog post,
cites sources from the 16th cent CE. It was a day off for schools,
and people made a point of eating many and special fruit.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 09:22:45AM -0500, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: The word Minhag in reverse is Gehinnom. To me, that could say that if
: we reverse our practices and customs, they (the customs) will surely go
: to hell. :-)

The usual take is that if one follows minhagim indiscriminately, without
listening to the rabbis about which have improper sources (assimilation,
Sabbateanism, etc...) or are other wise misguided, they are heading
downward.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

R? Marty Bluke:
As the Daf Yomi plows through Yoma it is very obvious that the Tannaim and
Amoraim were missing major pieces of information regarding the set up of the
Beis Hamikdash, the daily avoda, and the Yom Kippur Avoda. There are
disputes galore about historical facts, some examples that pop into my head,
there is a machlokes Tannaim was there 1 curtain separating the kodesh
hakodashim from the Heichal or 2. There is a 3 way machlokes about the path
that the Kohen Gadol took to go to the Kodesh Hakodishim, there are various
disputes about the order of teh Avoda and how the Kohen Gadol did the Avodas
Haketores on Yom Kippur. We see clearly that the Tannaim and Amoraim had no
mesora on these issues and were trying to recreate the facts based on sevara
and pesukim.? 

If this is the case regarding the Avoda why would it no apply to other parts
of Torah as well. Take for example the medrashim about the Avos. Why should
we think that Chazal had a better mesora about the Avos then they did about
the beis Hamikdash? Of course the same could be said about halacha as well.
The bottom line is that we see from the Gemara itself how fragile the mesora
was and how much was lost.
--------------------- 

I?m no historian, but I do see a clear distinction between the parts of
halachah having to do with the Avodah, Bais Hamikdash, and korbanos, which
were the responsibility and part of the daily practice of a relative few ?
the kohanim and levi?im ? compared with the midrashim about the Avos, or
other similar traditions, which were the purview of all Klal Yisroel. It
makes sense that after the persecution and hard times of the post-Bais
HaMikdash era there would be more confusion about the former than the
latter.

KT,
MYG

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14346

as previously stated , the chief rabbis never allowed girls serving in army.
does any one know has there ever been a formal psak  for let's say litvish
or chassidish communities saying bichlal army is either muttar or assur ?
 ie assuming that a bochur /avrech decides he is no longer in full time
learning , did a general psak ever officially allow/forbid enlisting and
serving?  or do people just decide for themselves?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140113/2d90b3de/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:00pm -0500, R Marty Bluke wrote:
> As the Daf Yomi plows through Yoma it is very obvious that the Tannaim 
> and Amoraim were missing major pieces of information regarding the set 
> up of the Beis Hamikdash, the daily avoda, and the Yom Kippur Avoda. 
> There are disputes galore about historical facts, some examples that 
> pop into my head, there is a machlokes Tannaim was there 1 curtain 
> separating the kodesh hakodashim from the Heichal or 2. There is a 3 
> way machlokes about the path that the Kohen Gadol took to go to the 
> Kodesh Hakodishim, there are various disputes about the order of teh 
> Avoda and how the Kohen Gadol did the Avodas Haketores on Yom Kippur. 


Only one of those is a historical fact -- the curtain(s). The others
may have been longstanding machloqesin, with different kohanim gedolim
holding differently.

During this same period, from at least the Chashmonaim through Rashi's
day, there were two common ways (and a third less common or perhaps
sectarian one, found in Qumran) of tying tefillin. The machloqes between
Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam doesn't reflect suddenly forgetting how tefillin
were historically made, but an attempt to standardize on the better of
the two.

I would like to think, based on cliches like "eilu va'eilu", that this is
the norm for machloqesin. But there have been historically three models
(as identified by RMHalbertal, I don't see how two of them necessarily
differ) offered to explain machloqes, so my comfort with one over the
other(s) doesn't mean much.

RMH's paper <http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf>. I
have further discussion, including a summary R Michel Rosensweig's essay,
at <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/eilu-vaeilu-part-i>. But here is my take
on RMH's thesis, to explain what I mean about my Accumulative-Constitutive
synthesis isn't the only possible way to explain machloqes:

    RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on
    plurality in halakhah:

    1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
       machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information.

       He finds this opinion to be typical of many ge'onim and the Seifer
       haQabbalah, and is based on statements like "Why were there so
       many debates between the schools of Hillel and Shammai [when there
       were so few between the mentors themselves? Because they did not
       properly serve their rabbis." Implied is that much was forgotten
       because of this lack of connection to the previous generation.

    2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
       given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
       different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among
       others. It comes from sources like Rabbi Aqiva's "finding mounds
       and mounds of laws in the crowns atop the letters".

    Personally, I would be inclined to say that these need not contradict,
    and perhaps both types of debates occur. Except that according to the
    Rambam, there are no machloqesin in underived law; in his opinion this
    is one of the critical features of a halakhah leMosheh miSinai (a law
    given to Moshe since Sinai). The Rambam makes the flawlessness of the
    mesorah incontravertable. Only contructions are open to debate. So,
    while one may choose to embrace the idea that both occured, one must
    be aware that that's not shitas haRambam.

    3- Constitutive: The poseiq (halachic decisor) doesn't discover
       what's correct halakhah. Rather, part of the definition of
       "correct" is the poseiq's say-so; Hashem gave them the power to
       decide and define law. This is the position of the Ramban, the
       Ritva and the Ran. A typical source: In order to make sanhedrin
       you needed to be able to find 49 arguments that something is
       tamei, and 49 that the same something is tahor. G-d gave us all
       98 arguments, and empowered the rabbinate to decide which is law.

    Here, I don't see why one must assert they are different. After
    all, even the Ramban and his students don't give the poseiq carte
    blanche. He may have the power to define law, but there are limits
    to which definitions are valid. It would seem from the Ritva (see
    the quote below, in the discussion of [R Rosensweig's] article)
    that the process of finding choices fit the "accumulative" model;
    G-d could have given us all 98 arguments not directly, but implicitly
    for us to derive. The argument the poseiq actually derives and finds
    authoritative could then be correct because of the "constitutive"
    model, because that's man's role in the halachic process.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Cc: RZLampel, ba'al ha-"The Dynamics of Dispute" (available from
AishDas's Amazon storefront here <http://j.mp/1eBUHMw>)

-- 
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

From Areivim:

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:40 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 10/01/2014 10:06 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>
>  The Chief Rabbinate ruled that Jewish law forbids religious girls
>> from enlisting in the IDF, /Galei Tzahal/ (IDF Radio) reported
>> Thursday.
>>
>
> This is not a chidush,  AFAIK it's been the position of every Chief Rabbi
> since R Herzog.
>

Why should this be prohibited in a non-combat role?

Kol Tuv,
Liron

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140114/f2327fc2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> According to RSRH,  there is no need to take midrashim literally.  See
> * Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita I
> <http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirsch.pdf>
> ... Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita II
> <http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaHebrew_ll.pdf
> >
> ... Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch on Aggadita III
> <http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/hirschAgadaEnglish.pdf>
> In light of this,  I see no need to the medrashim as being literally true.

Midrashim was just an example, my point was that we see from the Gemaras
in Yoma (and other places) that the Mesorah is not as strong as we are
led to believe.


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Moshe Y. Gluck <mgl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm no historian, but I do see a clear distinction between the parts of
> halachah having to do with the Avodah, Bais Hamikdash, and korbanos, which
> were the responsibility and part of the daily practice of a relative few ?
> the kohanim and levi?im ? compared with the midrashim about the Avos, or
> other similar traditions, which were the purview of all Klal Yisroel. It
> makes sense that after the persecution and hard times of the post-Bais
> HaMikdash era there would be more confusion about the former than the
> latter.

I would disagree because midrashim are not halacha l'maase and therefore I
would think that the chance for confusion would be higher. Remember, the
Tannaim and Amoraim believed that mehera yibaneh hamikdash and that these
halachos would be relevant.

On 14/01/2014 2:59 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> Why should this be prohibited in a non-combat role?

Apart from the reasons given by R Eliezer Melamed in this article,
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/14346
which apply to soldiers in any role, AIUI all soldiers have to train with
and carry weapons; is this not so?  And if so, we don't have to get into
the other arguments,since the issur on women bearing arms seems clear.
In fact I'm surprised he didn't mention it.  Unless it's the case that one
can serve in the IDF without bearing arms.

-- 
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 1/14/2014 12:35 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> Apart from the reasons given by R Eliezer Melamed...
> which apply to soldiers in any role, AIUI all soldiers have to train
> with and carry weapons; is this not so? And if so, we don't have to
> get into the other arguments,since the issur on women bearing arms
> seems clear. In fact I'm surprised he didn't mention it. Unless it's
> the case that one can serve in the IDF without bearing arms.

There's no prohibition of women bearing arms in the case of a milchemet
mitzvah, which any reasonable understanding of halakha describes the
State of Israel at the current time.

Lisa

Most non-combat soldiers do not carry a weapon. Though they do all pass a
basic course at the beginning of their service where they learn how to use
one.

Peace and Blessings,
-Eitan Levy
www.rabbieitan.com

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 7:16 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Only one of those is a historical fact -- the curtain(s). The others
> may have been longstanding machloqesin, with different kohanim gedolim
> holding differently.

The path that the Kohen Gadol took is also based on a historical machlokes,
what was the layout of the shulchan, mizbeach etc. The layout dictated the
path the Kohen Gadol would take.

> During this same period, from at least the Chashmonaim through Rashi's
> day, there were two common ways (and a third less common or perhaps
> sectarian one, found in Qumran) of tying tefillin. The machloqes between
> Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam doesn't reflect suddenly forgetting how tefillin
> were historically made, but an attempt to standardize on the better of
> the two.

The tefillin question has always bothered me so let's take a look at it for
a second. Bnei Yisrael received the mitzva of tefillin at Har Sinai and
presumably started to make hundreds of thousands of pairs of tefillin to
wear and Moshe Rabenu presumably instructed them exactly how to make the
tefillin including the order of the parshiyos. After that initial period,
everyone who became Bar Mitzva needed a pair of tefillin and you would
think that they would simply copy/pattern an existing pair. So how could
there ever evolve a different order of parshiyos, unless there was a period
of time when people stopped wearing tefillin and the mesora was lost. What
other answer can you suggest?

> RMH's paper <http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf>...
>     RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on
>     plurality in halakhah:

>     1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
>        machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information.

>     2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
>        given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
>        different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among
>        others. It comes from sources like Rabbi Aqiva's "finding mounds
>        and mounds of laws in the crowns atop the letters".

The Rambam's position is very difficult because we find many examples
of machlokes on things that had to be given at Sinai. One example is
tefillin, obviously Moshe Rabenu received the order of the parshiyos and
Bnei Yisroel wrote tefilin and yet there is a major dispute. The Rambam
himself writes in Hilchos Shofar (Perek 3) based on the Gemara (RH 34a)
that Bnei Yisrael forgot what sound a terua is because of all the trials
and tribulations of Galus. Again, this is very difficult, my 5 year old
son knows the difference between a shevarim and a terua and shofar and
can make the different sounds and it is a public mitzva done in front of
everyone. How can it be that everyone forgot the sound unless there was
a long period when teh mitzva was not observed. Additionally, how does
all this fit with the Gemara in Sanhedirn (88b) that there basically
was no machlokes until the time of Hillel and Shamai, before then the
Sanhedrin Hagadol would simply render a binding psak.

On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:07:37AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The tefillin question has always bothered me so let's take a look at it for
: a second. Bnei Yisrael received the mitzva of tefillin at Har Sinai and
: presumably started to make hundreds of thousands of pairs of tefillin to
: wear and Moshe Rabenu presumably instructed them exactly how to make the
: tefillin including the order of the parshiyos. After that initial period,
: everyone who became Bar Mitzva needed a pair of tefillin and you would
: think that they would simply copy/pattern an existing pair. So how could
: there ever evolve a different order of parshiyos, unless there was a period
: of time when people stopped wearing tefillin and the mesora was lost. What
: other answer can you suggest?

You presume your conclusion. I don't know why you assume MRAH did indeed
instruct us on the order of the parshios. A number of halakhos leMosheh
Misinai (hlMmS) are related to how to make tefillin, and this isn't one
of them.

Of the Rambam's list of 31 HlMmS (and I know his position on HlMmS is
difficult, I just don't know of any other lists) the following are all
that relate to tefillin:
    10. Kelaf for tefillin
    13. Having shin on the outside
    14. The knots spell Shakai
    15. Black retzu'os
    16. Tefillin are square (cubic? I don't know if the third dimension
        is HlMmS)
    17. Ma'avarta for the retzu'ah to pass through
    18. Rolling and tying the kelaf using a kosher animal product
    19. Sowing the batim closed using a kosher animal product

The following to are about seifer Torah, but might include sta"m in
general
    20. The ink must be kosher to eat
    21. The pen
but then, if they are sta"m in general, why does he separa kelaf into
tefillin (#10), mezuzos (#11) and sifrei Torah (#12)? OTOH, don't
tefillin have to be on kelaf and isn't that fact omitted from the text
(peshat and derashah)? Any, getting back on topic.

The order of the parshios would logically be on that list if it were
given to Moshe, but it's not there.

And I don't know why you have to go to the beginning of the period in
question. It's imposssible that in Rashi's day (a more historically
verifiable proposition), people didn't have tefillin they could open
up and check against, that he and Rabbeinu Tam could come up with two
answers.

Rather, from Moshe's day it was known misevara that the Shemos parsshios
should be in some sense to the right of the Devarim ones. How you
made sense in that way, and whether for you or for someone looking
at you was indeed left up to the wearer.

Those who wear murex dyed strings (which are now technicaly
Haxpalex trunculus dyed -- the taxonomists renamed it) face a similar
situation. Rashi and the Rosh give up trying to make sense of how to tie
tzitzis according to both the Sifrei and the gemara. They conclude that
the concept of chulios -- groups of 3 windings perhaps set off by knowts
-- is a din in tekheiles and thus we tie according to the Sifrei alone
(dividing the 39 windings among 5 knots, none of them separating off a
group of only 3).

But if one is trying to wear tekheiles all bets are off.

So one knot is de'Orasia, top or bottom. And you need windings that
are somehow grouped in three. But there is really no pesaq choosing one
Gaon's, rishon's or even acharon's way of accomodating the sources beyond
those. And so it leaves the individual Jew, hopefully with coordination
with a poseiq, on his own to decide which he prefers. Barring issues
like RHS holding that the knots must be double knots (for an Ashkenazi)
because Tosafos define knots that way in general when discussing the
melakhah on Shabbos.

...
:> RMH's paper <http://rambam.merkaz.com/Class%204%20-%20Halbertal.pdf>...
:>     RM Halbertal proposes that there are three basic positions on
:>     plurality in halakhah:

:>     1- Retrieval: All of Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore
:>        machloqesin (debates) are due to forgotten information.

:>     2- Accumulative: Torah is built analytically from what was
:>        given. Therefore, machloqesin come from different minds reaching
:>        different conclusions. This is the Rambam's position among
:>        others. It comes from sources like Rabbi Aqiva's "finding mounds
:>        and mounds of laws in the crowns atop the letters".

: The Rambam's position is very difficult because we find many examples
: of machlokes on things that had to be given at Sinai...

That would be true of the majority opinion among rishonim as well,
the constitutive approach. Only the geonim's retrieval model would fit
your assumption.

Which is why I wouldn't share that assumption. Nu, so each tefillin or
tzitzis must be made one way or the other. And eventually we standardize
on one way over the other. But does that mean Moshe had to have spelled
out the one true way, that it alone was correct from Sinai on? Couldn't
there have been more creative license back in the day when people had
more mesiras nefesh (Abayei to R' Papa, Berakhos 20a) and could be
trusted to use that creativity without being deflected by negi'os?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam


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


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 32, Issue 8
*************************************

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.)