Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 113

Fri, 14 Aug 2015

• 1. Re: sources for not covering hair (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: sources for not covering hair (Akiva Miller)
• 3. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) ()
• 4. Subject: depression (bk)
• 5. Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A Rabbanite Response to Qaraism (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Re: De-Chokifying Arayos (including MZ) (Akiva Miller)
• 11. Copyright (Micha Berger)
• 12. Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Baal Nefesh in the Igeros Moshe (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: Mesora only through Rashi (Heather Luntz)

On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 12:55:06AM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: Here are the sources I have collected, in addition to the fact that a
: significant percentage of Modern Orthodox women to not cover their hair in
: public except in shul/davening situations.

Although there is long evidence of rabbis saying it's a problem, but
not a battle they can win. So the mimetic side is dismissable. (Also,
how does someone who advocates for more roles for women in shul make a
mimetic argument?)

: In the words of R. Yehoshua Babad: "The principle whether or not an act of
: uncovering constitutes immodesty (*ervah*) is...

: If the women in the general society do not cover their hair, then uncovered
: hair is not immodest, and therefore routine hair covering is not mandated.

But saying it's not a breach of tzeni'us doesn't say it's allowed,
that's your addition not in the translated text you quote. RYB could
mean what the AhS says, that it's terrible things came to this, but you
may daven in her presence. Or, that whle it's not a tzeni'us problem,
it's still prohibited deOraisa as per the implication in parashas sotah.

: Here is a list of easily accessable sources:
: Rabbi Marc Angel...

Listening to his citing R' Masas and your quoting R Badad, maybe it's
a Seph thing?

He presumes hair covering is das Yehudis, which makes his a rare
shitah. (Again, given the derivation from a pasuq.)

But then again, R' Ovadiah Yosef firmly disagrees.

But you took on a comparatively easier task -- that the shitah exists. And
two Sepharadi citations should be sufficient.

...
: I emphaisize that R. Broyde states that his article is a limmud zechut, and
: not taking the position that women do not have to cover their hair.
: However, the sources and thread of learning speak for themselves and
: everyone can come to their own conclusion.

... which is what he does, that the theory is there, but it's a shitah
dechuyah. And noticably, he too quotes R' Yosef Masas, R' Moshe Malka
and the Kaf haChaim  -- Sepharadi sources.

: Rav Yosef Haim...

So, assuming the woman doesn't eat qitniyos, may she go with her hair
uncovered?

And even if she does... At what point is a shitah dechuyah?

...
: Regarding the position of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, here is the testimony
: of Rabbi Yitz Greenberg.

: R. Yitz Greenberg reports his question to Rav Soloteitchik and the reply:
: "How was it that Rebbetzin Tonya Soloveitchik, *zichronah livracha*, did
: not cover her hair? ...
: Smiling, the Rav said that immodesty (*ervah*) is contextual and that in
: this society and time, showing hair was not immodest (*ervah*)."

: I have not seen it personally, but R. Gil Student reports that the
: artscroll biography of R. Dessler contains photos of rebbitzins with
: uncovered hair.

: Obviously, not covering hair in public for women was at least somewhat
: common...

And yet the rabbanim protested. This isn't even admissable as mimetic
tradition, any more than noting how often people speak leshon hara or
buy off-the-books or anything else rabbis have failed to curb.

: uncovered hair, RYBS would have been allowing all those men who saw his
: wife to sin.  The position seems quite untenable.

He too, would only need to be convinced is wasn't ervah in the sense of
"all those men" sinning. But as we see in the AhS, that doesn't mean
it's allowed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Noam Stadlan wrote:

<<< Of course there are baseline standards of tzniut for Jew, men and
women, that are independent of surrounding culture.  But hair covering is
not one of them. ... I would note that the vast majority of shittot do not
require single women to cover their hair. >>>

I both agree and disagree.

Hair covering is NOT a "baseline standard", in the sense that it applies
only to married women and not to single girls.

But hair covering IS a baseline standard for Jewish women, in the sense
that it remains in force independent of the surrounding culture.

Thus, we have at least three different standards: males, married females,
single females. And actually, we have several more than that, if we
distinguish among various ages of boy and girl children, not to mention
infants.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150811/2e9acb7b/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: Akiva Miller via Avodah _avodah@lists.aishdas.org_ 
(mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org) 


<<< ... for men, this activity is actually physically  impossible without
pleasure. A woman can be "kekarka" as Esther Hamalka  was  but a man
cannot.  And for this reason, among others, the idea  of  "objectifying men"
is just ridiculous. >>>  [--TK]

>> I think we may be understanding the word "objectify" in  different ways.

Contrary to what some might think, not all men are  constantly obsessed with
having sex. At any given point in time, a particular  man might have other
priorities -- other activities that he'd rather do than  this one. But a
husband cannot give higher priority to these activities over  Onah, just
like he can't choose them over minyan, or other mitzvos. He must  be
sensitive to his wife's needs and wants, and if he senses her mood, he  is
under a chiyuv d'Oraisa to act accordingly....

But there is no flip side to Onah. The wife has no responsibility to  judge
her husband's desires. In fact, even if she does realize that he is "in  the
mood", there is no Chiyuv d'Oraisa for her to ignore her other desires  and
respond to her husband's desires....<<
 

Akiva Miller
(now at AkivaGMiller at gmail)

 
 
>>>>>
 
There is a great irony in what you have written.  You seem to think  that 
there is an inequality, a lack of reciprocity, in the mutual obligations of  
men and women -- with women having all the power and men all the  
obligation.  It is ironic because the mitzva for men to be sensitive to  their wives' 
feelings derives from the /curse/ that was given to Chava!
 
Look at Rashi on Ber 3:16, "el ishech teshukasech -- your desire will be  
towards your husband."  Rashi says the curse is:  You -- the woman --  will 
desire relations, but will not be so brazen as to request  it verbally. 
Rather, "he will rule over you" -- it is all from him --  the initiative is his 
-- and not from you. [end Rashi]
 
 
To modern ears this Rashi might sound strange because the idea  that "women 
are not brazen" sounds so old-fashioned.  Modesty has gone  out the window 
in modern society. But even the brazen women -- and certainly the  more 
refined and eidel women -- want to be wanted.  By their nature, most  women do 
not want to be the ones taking the initiative or the ones pursuing the  men.  
For most women it is embarrassing to have to ask outright.  
 
If you want an example of a woman in the Torah who was brazen even way back 
 then, look at Eishes Potiphar -- "Lie with me."  The very fact that she  
behaved this way shows what a hussy she was, but also, it shows that she was  
utterly humiliated.  Not only was Yosef not seduced by her wiles, but  even 
when she so lost her dignity as to ask him outright, he /still/  refused.   
It is no wonder she felt such a burning desire  for revenge.    
 
 
It was in order to mitigate the harshness of Chava's curse that Chazal  
instituted the rule that men have to be sensitive to their wives' desires,  
that a woman should not have to humiliate herself by spelling out what she  
wants. It is a chessed that a man does for his wife, to mitigate the curse,  to 
somewhat level the playing field in which men have all the advantages!
 
I actually think this a wonderful example of Chazal's extraordinary  
sensitivity to women.  They acknowledge and partially correct an imbalance  that 
favors men at the expense of women, ever since Adam and Chava.

 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150812/b75ff141/attachment-0001.htm>

I have worked in the mental health field and have other personal experience
with serious depression. The description which you provided "mild
depression", would not at all indicate a danger to anyone including daycare
children. It seems that the description is very much lacking. Either there
is much more to warrant defying her confidence, including/especially to a
rav, or someone doesn't understand what depression is all about. I'm
assuming that the former is the case. So, the question is, what can we
learn from a case in which the problem is not accurate?

b'kavod,
ChaimBaruch Kaufman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150812/b9fb1ed0/attachment-0001.htm>

 From 
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/08/waiting-six-hours-for-dairy-
rabbanite.html

Qaraites are a Jewish group that began around 760 CE. They rejected 
the Talmud and rabbinic Judaism and insisted that Jews only observe 
halacha as expressed in the literal text of the Torah. "Qaraite" 
means "Scriptualist". The movement started in Iraq and Persia by Jews 
who objected to the authority of the leaders of the Babylonian Talmud 
Academies, the Gaonim. The Gaonim and their successors, the rishonim, 
are called Rabbanites because of their stance in defending the Talmud 
and rabbinic laws.

Scholars have noted that many minhagim began as a response to the 
Qaraite movement. For example, the recital of Bameh Madlikim on 
Friday evening  after davening [1] was started in the times of the 
Gaonim to reinforce the rabbinic stance on having fire prepared 
before Shabbos, in opposition to the Qaraite view that no fire may be 
present in one's home on Shabbos [2]. There is evidence that the 
reading of Pirkei Avos [3] on Shabbos afternoon, which began in 
Gaonic times, was to emphasize to the Jewish masses that the Oral Law 
was passed down since Moshe Rabbeinu as stated in the first mishna of 
Pirkei Avos.

Professor Haym Soloveitchik [4] has argued convincingly that the 
unique arrangement of Hilchos Shabbos in Rambam's Mishna Torah was 
organized specifically with anti-Qaraite intent. Briefly, Rambam's 
formulation of the Shabbos laws does not follow a chronological order 
or any other expected logical order.

See the above URL for more.  YL


llev...@stevens.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150812/45adae1e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:25:27AM +0300, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
: R' Lichtenstein was bothered by this point and answered that we need to
: rely on our teachers and Gedolim.

: "Probably most significant, however, is our reliance upon our own mentors.
: Sensing that modern gedolim, "the judge of your era" -- for our purposes, most
: notably, the Rav, but not he alone -- have examined the issue and the evidence
: and adopted a positive stance, we, ordinary students of Torah, follow in
: their footsteps as we identify with their position...

: I understand that for many of us that is not a very satisfying answer and
: leads to many questions about why specifically here we follow minority
: opinions as opposed to other places (e.g. wombs issues, etc.) but I don't
: think there is a better answer. This is the way the halachic system works.

To some extent, yes. However, I do not know what halachiccategory is
"gedolim". My job is to have my own poseiq, someone ho cnot only knows
the halakhah, but knows me and my situation. Or to get as close to that
as possible.

My rav's job is to have experts to inform him, and to know when a
question is either too complicated for his skills, or the stakes to high
(eg mamzeirus, potential intercommunal fallout, or....) to not consult
others, starting with his own rav. Yes, you will eventually reach the few
at the head of the pyramid, so I guess we can call them "the gedolim",
and their opinions will end up shaping policy on big or broad issues.

But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in
the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability
to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos
and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who
know less of that reality.

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 Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 11:28:31PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
: I confess there seems to me to be a pretty straightforward explanation - the
: influence of the outside world. The same sort of influence that reputedly
: led to the cherem of Rabbi Gershom (Jews who are supposed to be the
: upholders of morality cannot be seen to have more than one wife in a world
: where that is seen as immoral)...

I understood this as well as the Sho'el uMeishiv's take on intellectual
property in a single way, and slightly different than your explanation.

The Sho'el uMeishiv invokes "lo sehei Torah shelanu kesichah beteilah
shelahem. If they recognize a kind of property as a right our native sense
finds moral, we obviously must obligated to protect it as well. This is
not DDD, as the protection isn't to the extent of the civi law, but to the
extent of the halakhos of property. He is identifying a moral obligation
we must halachically defend, not the civil law in and of itself...

My understanding is that it's not that we learned morality from their law,
but their law reflects a new social contract. The new expectations are
a change in metzi'us. Now that we expect to have intellectual property,
that is part of the new situation, to which a new pesaq applies.

Similarly, I understood Rabbeinu Gershom's mandating monogamy in
the same terms. He was less worried about being seen as immoral,
or learning morality from Xian marriage norms. Rather, once society
created different expectations of what marriage is, we had no ability
nor obligation to reset to the old expectations (after all, even chazal
referred to sister wives as "tzaros"), and therefore have to support a
moral solution to the new expactations. A woman gets married expecting
a man for herself. Rabbeinu Gershom mandated treating that woman morally.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:04:47PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent
: the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no corresponding
: safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers.

Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference between what
"porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a romance novel, I would
think that it's not just Chazal who would conclude the threat of
objectfication is assymetric.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> 
> But I do not think RYBS would be happy learning that he had a talmid in
> the job of mara de'asra who had so little confidence in his own ability
> to map theory to realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronos
> and desires of the people in it that he hands the job off to people who
> know less of that reality.
> 
> I agree but I think it's also true That RYBS would not be happy
> learning that he had a talmid in the job of mara de'asra who had so so
> much confidence in his own ability to create the theory to map to
> realia of the actual situation and the middos, qishronosand desires of
> the people in it that he doesn't hand the job off to those more
> qualified to break new ground. 
Kol tuv 
Joel rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

I wrote:
: ... But I find it curious that Chazal set up safeguards to prevent
: the husband from abusing his powers in these areas, and no
: corresponding safeguards prevent the wife from abusing hers.

R' Micha Berger responded:
> Given the size of the two porn industries, or the difference
> between what "porn" usually refers to and locating smut in a
> romance novel, I would think that it's not just Chazal who
> would conclude the threat of objectfication is assymetric.

Chazal were aware of the differences between those two industries, and they
suggested reasons for it on the top few lines of Kesubos 64b.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150812/f8ba4e57/attachment-0001.htm>

Back in Jun 2001, Napster was in the news, and I heard a shiur from R
Zev Reichman, then of REITS' Kollel Elyon. So at the first on-list
mention of copyrights, I used it as an excuse to post a summary on-list at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#04> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol07/v07n058.shtml#13>. It's been 14
years, and I just learned of a beautiful einfahl by R' Asher Weiss
on the subject. So, I'm reviewing the list, and adding to it.

(v7n58 #13 is marked ">", #4 is marked ":".)

> 1- Dina dimalchusa issues:

> According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on
> taxation.

> The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined
> that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed
> specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some
> animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule.

> 2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes
> beyond ddd.

: The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
: obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment, it
: is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership
: of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal
: (barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights
: are lehalachah also eternal.

: Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for
: that too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a
: halachic eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos
: of copyright.

: I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns
: moral rights identified by the surrounding culture.

> RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of
> copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but
> eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even
> if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify
> it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would
> it be a halachah only in France?

> 3- Hasagas gevul:

> There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few
> centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem
> is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century
> after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That
> if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject
> to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who
> learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah.

> The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition of
> the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the plates,
> a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed his
> own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original. The
> Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under cheirem,
> as they prevented him from recouping his loss.

> Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul.

> However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition,
> not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser.

> This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was
> a talmid at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R'
> Chaim and had it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher
> found out about it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who
> ruled in favor of R' Bleich.

> 4- Issur geneivah:

> R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach
> mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah.

> 5- Hezek

> Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a
> tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek to
> someone who would otherwise earn money.

> Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu on
> this one.

> 6- Chilul Hashem

> In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in
> the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore
> *dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the
> copying would be found to be technically legal.

7- Chamas

So I heard from R' J Ziring (YUTorah.org) that R' Asher Weiss in a 2013
shiur compared the theft of intellectual property to the dor hamabul
(after revisiting some of the above). I found a blog post of RJZ's that
describes it <http://j.mp/1JWfAVq> or
<https://shaashuim.wordpress.com/2
014/06/06/intellectual-property-when-halacha-has-to-deal-with-new-categorie
s>:

    Chazal explain that the sin of the dor hamabul was that they would
    each steal less than a shaveh perutah. Thus, in the aggregate
    they would destroy people's livelihood, but none of them could be
    prosecuted in court. From here he argued that there is an issur to do
    something, which while not formally theft, lends to a society that
    destroys other people's financial well being. If no one respects
    intellectual property, then inventors, writers, and the like will
    have no way of supporting himself. Thus, even if no one can properly
    be called a gazlan, they have all participated in chamas.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

> PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus to
> include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I make it
> clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well.

-- 
Micha Berger             The same boiling water
mi...@aishdas.org        that softens the potato, hardens the egg.
http://www.aishdas.org   It's not about the circumstance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but rather what you are made of.

R' Elli Fischer contrasted the use of baal nefesh yachmir in the MB with
its use in the IM. (Also heard via R' Jonathan Ziring.)

The MB uses baal nefesh yachmir to refer to chumeros where the person
is acting in a way to fulfill all shitos. The MB lists the more recent
opinions, and then advises that the baal nefesh follow the most stringent.

(Although I believe we found in previous iterations that the MB doesn't
actualy use the expression particularly often.

The IM argues that chalav hacompanies is actually chalav yisrael, so
that there is no textual reason to only drink milk that was literally
Yisrae'el ro'ahu, as opposed to using anan sahade eidus. But leshitaso,
FDA certified milk is kosher even according to the Peri Chadash. (YD 1:47)

In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh
yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he
dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba
beyond halakhah.

Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted
pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I don't have it open in front of me, but IIRC, in his psak on eating 
veal RMF makes it very, very clear that the baal nefesh will not eat it 
and anyone who does is (to use my words) walking on thin ice.  The way 
he relates to a baal nefesh in the CY issue (it is a nice thing to do 
but if you don't keep, no big deal) vs the veal issue (you really 
shouldn't be eating this stuff) is stark.

Ben

On 8/14/2015 12:08 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> In 1:48 he dismisses all other possibilities, and then says baal nefesh
> yachmir. RMF's baal nefesh is not being chosheish for all shitos, he
> dismissed those other shitos. Instead he is keeping minhag yisrael saba
> beyond halakhah.
>
> Pretty much the opposite of the MB's baal nefesh, who is ignoring accepted
> pesaq in order to make sure all the textual bases are covered.

I have been struggling with this thread, but have not found it easy to
explain why, although I will do my best:

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:153am EDT, R Saul Guberman wrote:
: RGS makes the claim that we would not have TSP & our Mesora without Rashi
&
: the Tosafists.
: http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/07/who-was-greater-than-rambam/
: Our *Torah shebe'al peh* is based on Rashi and the Tosafists. If Jewish
: history had not included Maimonides, the Jewish world would have missed a
: great deal. Maimonides enriched our thinking and world view tremendously,
: but the *Torah shebe'al peh* would have survived without him. However,
: without Rashi and the Tosafists, there would not have been any *mesora*,
: any chain of tradition; we could not teach *Torah shebe'al peh* today.

And RMB then wrote:

>Which is a different statement than the subject line.

>I took RGS's expansion of RYBS's idea to mean that we got our mesorah
through all these parallel strands. However, the loss of a codifier who
stands alone, like the Rambam, is less critical to >the survival of mesorah
than the parshanim. Rambam added a lot to our mesorah. But Rashi and Tosafos
made it possible for later generations to continue understanding the gemara.

I think what troubles me about this line of argument is that the Shulchan
Aruch relies far more heavily on the Rambam than upon Rashi and the
Tosaphists.  It would surely not be unfair to say that without the Rambam,
we would not have the Shulchan Aruch.

Which seems then to mean this line of argument to be saying that the
Shulchan Aruch is irrelevant to our mesorah?!?

I really struggle with that statement.

Now, if you want to limit the claim, and say that Rashi and Tosphos are far
more key than the Rambam to what people do in modern day yeshivas all day,
including (if not particularly) the Briskers, then it would be hard to
disagree.

But is what people are doing in yeshiva all day in the 21st century "the
mesorah" or is the Shulchan Aruch "the mesorah"?

What are the consequences if we relegate the Shulchan Aruch and elevate the
Tosphists in terms of halacha as she is practiced?

Somehow these seem troubling directions in which to be heading, but I must
log off as shabbas is coming very soon in this part of England (and I, for
one, am not about to rely on Rabbanu Tam, Tosphotist par excellence,
regardless of his mesorah, I don't know about you,).

-Micha

Shabbat Shalom 

Chana





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



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


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


***************************************

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.)