<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16535"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>RZS wrote (in Areivim):</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>The Torah itself has many comments about middos that are good,
without<BR>being mandatory. Pirkei Avos is a whole mesechta of "milsei
dachasidusa";<BR>none of it is mandatory, but it's an indication within Torah of
what is<BR>right and wrong. A person can ignore the whole Pirkei Avos
"birshus<BR>haTorah", and be a "naval".<BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>CS responds:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>While some may see Avos as you say a </FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman">"milsei dachasidusa" others will not agree. Rav Yechiel
Meir Katz in his perek shiur last week said over from the Gr"a that most of Avos
is a d'Aureisa. In answer to the question about the naming of Avos (why all
other masechtos are named by their content while Avos is not) he says that is to
make just this point. As the gemara tells us, one meaning of AV is that
it is mefurash in Torah whereas a tolda is not. He says that throughout
Avos the Gr"a keeps pointing out the source in the Torah for the opinions
in Avos to show that they really are mefurash in Torah and thus an av and hence
d'Aureisa and not just a "milsei dachasidusa."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Kol Tuv</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Calibri>Chaim Manaster</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>