[Avodah] ancient minhagim

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 09:48:22AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: The other thing to remember is that the Rambam intended to replace 
: introductory study of Talmud with study of Mishneh Torah (see Igrot 
: HaRambam , ed. Sheilat, pp. 257-259, 311-313), so that articulating 
: methodology of Talmud study would be less useful.

This ties to our discussion of AhS yomi. The choice of a seifer halakhah
(the "shelish bemishnah" as the Rambam understands it) for one's beqi'us
rather than gemara.

I don't thing the Mishneh Torah was to replace the shelish begemara,
though.

On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 06:47:58PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: T613K at aol.com wrote:  
:>You remind me of Moshe Rabeinu not knowing what Rabbi Akiva was talking 
:>about, and R' Akiva saying it's halacha leMoshe miSinai!  The story 
:>implies that whatever Chazal were later to deduce was already implicit 
:>in the Torah that Moshe received.

: I think you've got the story confused.  IIRC there's nothing to indicate
: that MR didn't recognise the halacha that was quoted in his name.  He was
: worried that with RA deducing halachot through methods of drash that he
: had not explored and couldn't follow, his own role had been forgotten; he
: was reassured when he saw that he was still being quoted, and that there
: were halachot that even RA couldn't prove but had to rely on MR's word.

Your read is problematic, because the gemara does seem to leave things
with the conclusion that Moshe saw proof that R' Aqiva was a greater
chakham than MRAH. In Sichos Mussar, RCShemeuelevitz uses this story to
show how generations add to the understanding of the Torah.

Also, why would the anav mikol adam be so concerned about people
remembering his own role?

RnTK's understanding, aside from being beloved by LORs giving shabbas
morning derashos, is that of the Maharashah (Chidushei Agados on Menachos
29b) and is pretty well explored and supported in R' Dr Moshe Koppel's
Metahalakhah, and our chaver RZLampel's Dynamics of Dispute.

See also R' Tzadoq, who revists this point numerous times: 
    Liqutei Maamarim pg 6
    Poqeid Iqarim #6
    Peri Tzadiq, Vayechi #10
    Peri Tzadiq, Zakhor #1
R' Tzadoq speaks of RA saying bepo'ael what MRAH was given bekoach,
RA being the yesod of TSBP. He also quotes Bamidbar Rabba that "vekhol
yaqar ra'asah eino" is R" Aqiva vechaveiro, to whom were revealed things
that weren't revealed to Moshe.

In this explanation, Moshe Rabbeinu was satisfied when he heard that
this study he didn't quite understand all followed from the system
he established.

You can disagree, as I pointed out Rashi did, but she does not have the
story confused.

I would also think that this maaseh assumes a particular stance on the
machloqes of when the Torah was first written in Ashuris. If Ashuris
wasn't used until the Torah was re-given in Ezra's time, then what did
MRAH see Hashem tying to each letter that motivated the whole trip to
the future?

LAD, the Medrash speaks of R' Aqiva's mountains of halakhos from the tagin
refers to the basic machloqes of the two schools of medrashei halakhah. R'
Yishmael holds "diberah Torah belashon benei adam" and his rules of
derashos apply to meanings (kelal uperat). R' Aqiva darshens words:
"akh", "raq", "es" (ribui umi'ut). In an extreme sense a student of R'
Yishma'el's would charicature R' Aqiva's focus on the details of syntax
as per this medrash.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha at aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv