[Avodah] Mesora
david guttmann
david.guttman at verizon.net
Sun Aug 23 04:20:54 PDT 2009
RZZ writes
>The Rambam is a more interesting case: his mesorah was like RT, and from
bar mitzvah until the age of 18 that is what he wore. Then he became
convinced that the Halacha was like Rashi, so he changed his Tefillin.
In that Teshuvah he mentions R. Moshe Hadre'i as proof for the Rashi Mesora
and was one of the reasons he changed his earlier practice. He is also
mentioned in Igget Teiman as a promoter of false Moshiach hopes see Sheilat
Page 162 in the notes. This and other inconsistencies with Rambam's thinking
and derech have been behind Rav Kappach's conviction that this Teshuvah is a
fake. (He feels so about most Lunel Teshuvat and I have posted on my blog on
one re Tzitzis where I show that it is obviously a fake teshuvah though
mentioned by Beit Yosef and others)
David Guttmann
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org
-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-bounces at lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of
avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 5:04 PM
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 173
Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: following mesorah (Zev Sero)
2. Re: lo plog (Micha Berger)
3. Re: inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh (Zev Sero)
4. Re: lo plog (Rich, Joel)
5. Re: lo plog (Zev Sero)
6. assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat? (Ben Waxman)
7. tefillin RT (Eli Turkel)
8. Mesorah (Eli Turkel)
9. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
10. Re: saves a life, or a Jewish life? (Simon Montagu)
11. Re: lo plog (Daniel Israel)
12. talmud Torah (Eli Turkel)
13. Re: Mesorah (Rich, Joel)
14. Re: Mesorah (Micha Berger)
15. Re: Mesorah (Daniel Israel)
16. Re: talmud Torah (Daniel Israel)
17. Re: Qaddish and Women (Chana Luntz)
18. K'lalei Rambam (rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com)
19. Re: assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat? (Micha Berger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:58:39 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] following mesorah
Message-ID: <4A8C4B5F.4090204 at sero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Eli Turkel wrote:
> In a Teshuvah, the Rambam (Sheilos
> V'Teshuvos HaRambam, Blau Edition, Chelek 2 Siman 289) also writes
> that Rav Hal Gaon himself wore Tefillin with the Parshiyos in the
> order that they appear in the Torah, and he asserts forcefully that
> this is the Halacha, as he rules in his Mishneh Torah (Hilchos
> Tefillin 3:5). The Ra'avad, however, both there (Ibid.) and in a
> Teshuvah (Sheilos V'Teshuvos Tamim De'im Siman 79), disagrees and
> accepts the other view.
The Rambam is a more interesting case: his mesorah was like RT, and from bar
mitzvah until the age of 18 that is what he wore. Then he became convinced
that the halacha was like Rashi, so he changed his tefillin.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:54:40 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lo plog
Message-ID: <20090819215440.GA32440 at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:45:38AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
[R Eli Turkel:]
:> More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the :>
prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog
: imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the
: halachic process reproducible?
Is this a question -- I thought the answer was clearly "no". E.g.
gezeiros. There are gezeiros for some cheshashos that are real stretches,
and yet nothing protecting things that nowadays are often done incorrectly.
(Hand clapping on Shabbos vs amirah le'aqum for tzarkhei rabbim, as an
example.) I think the only way to understand which things get a gezeirah is
to assume that in practice at the time when there was a Sanhedrin that
/could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people actually did err
on.
Another problem is that the halachic process is non-deterministic, and thus
what people actually chose to do, and how a particular poseiq happened to
see the options, does end up being why we hold one way and not the other.
E.g. It's not that Beis Hillel's pesaqim are more correct, it's that they
became current in the larger school that showed kavod to the other school.
The history ended up shaping the flow of halakah.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is capable of changing the world for the
micha at aishdas.org better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:22:30 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] inconceivable-- Ben Sorer uMoreh
Message-ID: <4A8C7B26.6060907 at sero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Michael Makovi wrote:
>>> Which chachamim? Bear in mind that the halacha accepted by
>>> everybody until about 1800 was that one may *not* do so, and *not*
>>> to worry about eivah.
> Let's change that 8 in 1800 to a 9. Mishnah Berurah 330:8, [....]
> Later, Hatam Sofer notes that whereas in Abbaye's time, the gentiles
> would accept the excuse, this is not so today
The Chasam Sofer was well before the MB.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:19:27 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich at sibson.com>
To: 'A High-Level Torah Discussion Group' <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lo plog
Message-ID:
<E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF442109C6653 at NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 05:45:38AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
[R Eli Turkel:]
:> More generally in some cases we say X is different than Y and so the :>
prohibition of Y does not apply and in other cases we say lo plog
: imho this is a specific case of a more general question - is the
: halachic process reproducible?
Is this a question -- I thought the answer was clearly "no". E.g.
gezeiros. There are gezeiros for some cheshashos that are real stretches,
and yet nothing protecting things that nowadays are often done incorrectly.
(Hand clapping on Shabbos vs amirah le'aqum for tzarkhei rabbim, as an
example.) I think the only way to understand which things get a gezeirah is
to assume that in practice at the time when there was a Sanhedrin that
/could/ make a gezeira, those were the things that people actually did err
on.
Micha
======================================
Don't think so - that would be reproducible - i.e. if we knew what the
practice at the time was, we would come up with the same result. I'm
talking about examples where in case A we say Lo Plug but not in B which
seems the same "stretch". Even more recently (where your explanation would
be less likely) why do we sometimes see poskim saying things like, "in this
case we're choshesh for the deiah of X" wheras in other cases X is dismissed
as a daas yachid?
KT
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.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:21:54 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lo plog
Message-ID: <4A8CB342.3090803 at sero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
AIUI "lo plug rabanan" doesn't mean that the rabanan *can't* make
distinctions, but that they don't have to make every distinction that could
conceivably be made. When they make a takanah they can build exceptions
into it, if they think of them and think it appropriate to exclude them, but
at some point they can decide "OK, no more exceptions to this rule, we're
done", and one can't then come along and make ones own exceptions. But for
this to apply there has to have been an actual takanah, where they could
have made (more) exceptions and chose not to.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
zev at sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:31:14 +0200
From: Ben Waxman <ben1456 at zahav.net.il>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat?
Message-ID: <002301ca2146$aca40c60$6e684557 at foxcomil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255"
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763033,00.html
What is the actual issur here?
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090820/
692f3e0d/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:30:36 +0300
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com>
To: avodah <avodah at aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] tefillin RT
Message-ID:
<471ff3f40908192230v298b2b1cr5af87b53cff600d7 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
RET
http://www.tzemachdovid.org/thepracticaltorah/bo.shtml
among those who agree with Rabbeinu Tam are Rabbeinu Chananel, Rav Sherira
Gaon, Rav Hai Gaon, and the Rif; the Rashba (Sheilos V'Teshuvos HaRashba
attributed to the Ramban Siman 234) cites Rav Saadyah Gaon as concurring as
well.
On the other side, the Rashba himself (Ibid.) concludes that Rashi 's order
is correct, adding that Rabbeinu Yonah and the Ramban held that way too; the
Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 421) also accepts this position, ..."
This question is somewhat rhetorical
Given this how can we make a bracha on any given sheeta of Tefillin?
OR
IOW via what mechanics can we defitively settle this post-Tallmudic dispute
decisively enough to overcome "s'feiq brachos lehaqeil"?
KT
RRW
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:21:03 +0300
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com>
To: micha at aishdas.org
Cc: avodah <avodah at aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] Mesorah
Message-ID:
<471ff3f40908192321j5f3d1515uff2b12dfdff7b851 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".>>
I am not sure how one subdivides the person. His opinions are not segregated
by title.
R Prof Leiman is not a professional rabbi or posek.
How about Sperber who in addition to be professor is also a rabbi of a shul
in the old city of Yerushalayim. Interestingly he writes that his
congregants are more conservative (small c) than him and wouldn't allow some
of his heterim in the shul.
In general I didn't understand the post of Micha. An academic discussing a
gemara or a shita in the rishonim does not expect to affect psak.
He is writing in his field and why would one expect it to affect a different
field.
I dont think that Haym Soloveitchik intends to change any piskei halacha in
his analysis even though he was a rebbe in YU.
On a personal level I have read many of the books on Jewish customs/history
bu Sperber, Auerbach,Ta Shma, Grossman and others and have found that I
learned a lot from them and they have even affected my learning of gemara.
As a trivial example I am disturbed by people asking a contradiction between
different tosafot in different masechtot without realizing that they may
have been written by different people.
Knowing something of the history of how tosafot were composed and how they
entered our printed editions could affect how one relies on our versions
versus a tosafot haRosh or manuscript data.
A famous example is women reading megilla. From the printed tosafot it is
not clear what they are referring to. However from Tosafot haRosh it is
clear that they prohibited women reading for men and not other women.
In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the bet
hamikdash in Baba Basra) Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.
BTW there are claims that the Rambam did change psak if he felt that the
answer of the gemara was dechuka.
--
Eli Turkel
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 05:42:35 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
To: Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com>
Cc: Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avodah at aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesorah
Message-ID: <20090820094235.GA25958 at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> If RSZL has any authority WRT the discussion of the CI from an
:> impact-on-halakhah POV, it's because of the "R", not the "Prof".
:
: I am not sure how one subdivides the person. His opinions are not
: segregated by title.
: R Prof Leiman is not a professional rabbi or posek.
I know that; I grew up around the corner from his home and we davened
in the same small shul, after all. Which is why I wrote "if he has any",
to distinguish from the CI (to pick another name from the discussion.
I'm having a disagreement with someone who believes that without a
Sanhedrin, halakhah is a science, and therefore an academic's opinion
carries equal halachic weight in his eyes as somoene who thinks in the
modes that grew up alongside the material as part of the mesorah.
You appear to agree below that a "Rabbi ... PhD" would slide into two
different modes of thought depending on the context. Whether he "expect[s]
to affect psak" (or at least his own behavior) or not. And I agree that
of course, since they're both from one mind, each informs the other.
However, in terms of *authority* being a great academic doesn't make
one an authority in rabbinic mode thinking. And therefore, if RMM wants
me to care about what RZSL says for the sake of a disscussion that is
about what the halakhah is, then the R' is the relevent title -- and
that difference is itself part of the conversation.
....
: In general I didn't understand the post of Micha. An academic discussing
: a gemara or a shita in the rishonim does not expect to affect psak.
My entire point is just that the two are distinct.
And so, RMShapiro's book about who believed what had no impact on whether
I wwould use wine handled by someone who only believed a subset of the
ikkarim. (I think RMShinnar and I disagree over whether the 13 ikkarim
were acceptd to an extent that they are halakhah; not on this point,
if they were.)
To return to where this thread began... RMM wrote in v26n121 quoting
RMShapiro's article on how Brisk could't be the intent of the Rambam.
His conclusion from that quote was that RMShapiro was jutifying Brisk's
authority on basically deconstrutionist grounds. I spent some time
thinking about academia, deconstructionism and how halakhah works, and
re-started the discussion explaining how I thought mesorah, being an
Oral Culture (even if not actually entirely oral anymore; the caps are
to denote my use of a buzzword), differed. In short, because the
tradition on interprettion, the culture of the batei midrash and beis
medrashes is part of the general flow. One therefore isn't left with
the dichotomy of original intent vs personal encounter
(deconstructionism).
I then continued that this basic error, viewing a pesaq as a stand-along
point to understand in one of those two terms, pulls one away from the
modality of thought that produces halakhah. RET, you find this point so
self evident, my saying so confused you. However, it seems clear to me
from my discussion with RMM here and on Nishma Blog (in response to a
entry by RMM) that RMM does not. And, after all, look at his usual pool
of sources cited here on Avodah. Do they reflect an awareness of the
significance of the difference of expertise in the two disciplines?
...
: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.
I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence
pesaq. Not less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.
...
: BTW there are claims that the Rambam did change psak if he felt that the
: answer of the gemara was dechuka.
I think more that the Rambam pasqened according to pesaqim more than
sevaros. Therefore, the Gra writes that if the Bavli had a shaqla
vetarya that concluded some peshat, but the Y-mi had an explicit "Amar
Ribbi ..." the Rambam would follow the Y-mi. Which would rule out his
following 98% of the dechuqos on those grounds.
How much the Rambam believed that halakhah is a science is a different
discussion. I think RMM would be closer to incorrect if we were all
following the Yad rather than the SA and Mappa. But that's for a later
post.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
micha at aishdas.org G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507 to include himself. - Rav Yisrael Salanter
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:21:31 -0700
From: Simon Montagu <simon.montagu at gmail.com>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] saves a life, or a Jewish life?
Message-ID:
<580f9f600908192221p8f1e837ga64d206514d36d7e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Michael Makovi
<mikewinddale at gmail.com>wrote:
> > It sort of depends on the precision of the translation. Is it "as though
> > he saved all of humanity" or "all of the people" [ie the Jewish People]?
> > You quote the latter.
> >
> > R' Micha
>
> Of course, if anyone knows Arabic, please speak up; the website from
> which I quoted the Koran in English also has the original Arabic on
> the same page.
>
It would be an exaggeration to say that I know Arabic, but I know how to use
an Arabic dictionary, and "all of humanity" seems to be the correct
translation of "alnas aljamia`" (nas is cognate to Hebrew enosh and Aramaich
nash).
The translations of the Koran that I own also translate it this way: "he who
saveth a life shall be as though he had saved all mankind alive" (J M
Rodwell 1909); "hamehhaye [nefesh] ke'ilu hehhya et kol ha'adam yahhdav" (Y
Y Rivlin 1987)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090819/
fc1251f4/attachment-0001.htm>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 22:04:05 -0600
From: Daniel Israel <dmi1 at hushmail.com>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lo plog
Message-ID: <0d4df6175185808146e8cab254f7d8f4 at smtp.hushmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Zev Sero wrote:
> AIUI "lo plug rabanan" doesn't mean that the rabanan *can't* make
> distinctions, but that they don't have to make every distinction that
> could conceivably be made.
I thought it was past tense, that is, "the Rabbanan didn't distinguish."
The point being that this is an observation of what the Rabbanan
actually did, rather than the statement of a principle. The Rabbanan
were able to establish gezeiros as they saw appropriate, and we are
simply observing the various cases of lo plug, where they didn't make a
distinction, and trying to postulate a rule. Given that various
gezeiros were made by different rabbanan, it is not clear that there
needs to be one.
--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:13:02 +0300
From: Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com>
To: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>, avodah <avodah at aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] talmud Torah
Message-ID:
<471ff3f40908200313r7d411741j42bb4165d5f1181e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
<<I consider it diminished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence
pesaq>>
Micha brings up a different point that is not completely clear.
What defines Talmud Torah
examples
learning dikduk?
learning Jewish history especially about talmud scholars
learning academic studies of talmud - eg Urbach, E. E., Ba'alei
HaTosafot (The Tosafists)
or perhaps academic articles that study a sugya instead about people
Using game theory to explain a sugya - Aumann
also
http://mindyourdecisions.com/blog/2008/06/10/how-game-theory-solved-a-religi
ous-mystery/
using probability theory to explain Rov and a sugya in kinnim
astronomy for studying kiddush hachodesh and related issues
studies of what was in bet hamikdash/mishkan
I have heard from RYBS that learning gemara on a rabbinic law is a kiyum
of the biblical mirzvah of talmud torah - is this obvious?
--
Eli Turkel
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:13:51 -0400
From: "Rich, Joel" <JRich at sibson.com>
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesorah
Message-ID:
<E0F39F1E5D787144B56F532B726FF442109C66EF at NYCEXCL03.segal.segalco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in historical
: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra and the
: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.
I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum hamitzvah
of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't influence pesaq. Not
less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.
...
=========================================================
Would you agree that the implication of this approach is that HKB"H doesn't
care as much about the results as he does about the process and asks us to
exclude from our considerations facts or approaches that one normally would
take into consideration in trying to find objective truth.
KT
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.
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:11:16 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesorah
Message-ID: <20090820151116.GB8039 at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:13:51AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Would you agree that the implication of this approach is that HKB"H
: doesn't care as much about the results as he does about the process and
: asks us to exclude from our considerations facts or approaches that one
: normally would take into consideration in trying to find objective truth.
Sort of, although I disagree with the phrasing. It's not so much a neglect
of objective truth in favor of the process as much as the process and
our immersion in it (and thus subjective) being the truth in question.
Objectively, it's all approximations of the Mind of G-d, Divrei E-lokim
Chaim. Halakhah is man creating a model of that, via the system.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
micha at aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM)
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:46:09 -0600
From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1 at hushmail.com>
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Mesorah
Message-ID: <20090820174609.30175B8043 at smtp.hushmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 03:42:35 -0600 Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:21:03AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
>: In summary when I learn or teach I frequently will bring in
historical
>: information (just did that in the discussion about Baba Butra
and the
>: bet hamikdash in Baba Basra)
>: Doesnt mean that I would change halacha according.
>: However that doesnt diminish a historical analysis.
>
>I consider it dimished in the sense that it's not the ikkar qiyum
>hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't
influence
>pesaq. Not less important than studying science qua maasei Hashem.
I agree with your overall point, but I think it is a complex one to
argue, in part because the lines are not a sharp as you draw them
To take a (hopefully good) concrete example. I heard somewhere
that R' Ya'akov Kamenetsky would use a thalet rather than a dalet
in the echad of shema. Leaving aside the reliability of the story
(my chavrusa asked two of his grandsons, one thought it was
plausible, the other dismissed it), it is clear that the reason
this is interesting, assuming it is true, is because of RYK's
status as a posek, not his status as an academic. In that sense I
am supporting your thesis. If I want to know historically what the
actually ancient pronunciation was RYK is not an authoritative
source, I would rather speak to an academic expert in linguistic
archeology. OTOH, if I am interested in halacha l'ma'aseh, RYK is
a very significant source, regardless of what the historical truth
is.
OTOH, to the best of my knowledge, there is very little purely
halachic material on which one could decide to use a thalet. It is
consistent with certain halachic sources, such as the SA's ruling
that it needs to be drawn out. And it is consistent with Temani
pronunciation. But I would suspect that any posek considering such
a position is being informed by academic scholarship, not by a
mesorah for that idea. Ain hachi nami, they are using the academic
scholarship to raise the issue, and then filtering it through the
mesorah to reach a conclusion. In that sense it is similar to a
rav asking an MD about a medical shaila. But it does blur the
lines your are drawing.
--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:51:53 -0600
From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1 at hushmail.com>
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] talmud Torah
Message-ID: <20090820175153.E642420040 at smtp.hushmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 04:13:02 -0600 Eli Turkel <eliturkel at gmail.com>
wrote:
><<I consider it diminished in the sense that it's not the ikkar
qiyum
>hamitzvah of talmud Torah for the same reasons that it doesn't
influence
>pesaq>>
>
>Micha brings up a different point that is not completely clear.
>What defines Talmud Torah
>examples
>
>learning dikduk?
AFAIR, Rambam at least says this one explicitly (I don't remember
where).
As far as your other examples, one can be m'kayim the mitzvah of
talmud Torah with many different things, but that doesn't mean they
are all equal ikkar. (I heard b'shem one RY that for talmidim at a
certain level, Gemara w/ Rashi is bitul Torah.) Can't the same be
true of your examples?
I guess the nafka mina would be a case where the halacha depends on
something being TT. I would think all of these would be assur on
9Av (but one could argue because of general inappropriateness
rather than TT). Which of these would work for osek b'mitzva patur
min hamitzva?
--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:06:36 +0100
From: "Chana Luntz" <Chana at kolsassoon.org.uk>
To: <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Qaddish and Women
Message-ID: <64F6CB1F7757403583132A7D66D19204 at Playroom>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
RDI writes:
> But, if it was instituted originally for a yasom, who cannot
> act as sha"tz, and it was originally instituted as a single
> sayer, then we see that it either is not a davar
> shebikedusha, or it is a special exception of some sort. If
> a katan can lead it, why not an isha?
> Unless, as I say above, it was not instituted for katanim,
> but for am haratzim- in which case we should posken today
> that a katan can't lead (does anyone hold like that?).
Well the Rema in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah siman 376, si'if 4 states
explicitly that it was instituted for the katanim, so obviously no.
The Shut of the Meharil in siman 28 which is one of the key sources for this
Rema was written specifically to address the following question - "The
great of the generation asked ... and also the reason why it is called the
Orphan Kaddish. And why minors say this kaddish since it is a d'var
shebekadusha." His answer is that it was metaken specifically for katanim,
and that katanim can say it, because it is not a chova.
> Just thinking "out loud".
>
> --
> Daniel M. Israel
>
Regards
Chana
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:43:45 +0000
From: rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com
To: "Micha" <Micha at aishdas.org>
Subject: [Avodah] K'lalei Rambam
Message-ID:
<1805440730-1250804751-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-986561444- at b
xe1281.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>
Content-Type: text/plain
I am researching the issue of Tefillin on Chol Hamoed. The Rambam AFAIK
is silent
I once recall that the Rambam leaves certain "gray" areas as undecided
by simply not discussing them
Any further information on either
How the Rambam works with these cases
OR
What the Rambam's true position was - would be helpful
Gut'n Chodesh
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
------------------------------
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 17:04:18 -0400
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Re: [Avodah] assur to go to the Kotel on Shabbat?
Message-ID: <20090821210418.GA29574 at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 05:31:14AM +0200, Ben Waxman wrote:
: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763033,00.html
: What is the actual issur here?
Psiq reishei, questionably nicha lei, on the indicator lamp on the
security camera.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 173
***************************************
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.61/2313 - Release Date: 08/21/09
06:04:00
More information about the Avodah
mailing list