Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 002

Wednesday, September 23 1998

• Geographically bound?
• Re: Bracha L'vatala
• Re: Geographically bound?
• Re: Methodology of Psak/Techeles
• Re: Aliyah L'Regel
• Moavi v'lo Moaviah
• Chasivah v'Chasimah Tovah
• Conservative Judaism
• Re: Methodology of Psak/Techeles
• Re: Ki'basroi and Dwarves on Giants
• Re: Ki'basroi and Dwarves on Giants
• authority of the Mishnah
• Re: Moavi v'lo Moaviah

R' YGB wrote:

[on the subject of techelet tzitzit, but perhaps meant in a wider sense?]

> Rishonim - i.e, are we bound geographically to this very day as R'
> Schachter contends, or not.

But what does that mean in terms of Rishonim?  In my case, and I 
dare say for most American Jews, geographic origin is Russia/Poland,
and I don't think there were many (any?) Eastern European Rishonim.
I can't think of any important Polish authorities before the Rema,
Russia maybe even later.  Should we be bound just on Rambam vs.
Rabbenu Tam, which I suppose corresponds to Sephardi/Ashkenazi?
Which leads to the question of when, and why, did the split 
happen?  Was it just Rambam vs. Tosfos?  And what relation did it
bear to the differing customs between Bavel and Eretz Yisrael
through the Talmudic and Geonic period?

Sorry to be pestering with all these questions, but the history
of halacha is interesting, particularly as it does affect us today.

It would be interesting for R' Daniel or someone else familiar with R'
Moshe's opinions to respond, because R' Moshe writes that only the seven
names that cannot be erased require geniza. I will start from that here
me'sevara d'nafshi.

Yet we know that many Poskim hold one is yotzei a brach with "Rachmana" as
a shem.

From this we deduce that the parameters of geniza are not equivalent to
those of shem in a bracha.

It may well be that the parameters of shem l'vatala resemble those of shem
of a bracha, not those of shem of geniza.

This may be because geniza as a parameter is dervide from the stones of a
"holy" mizbei'ach.

Shem of a bracha, on the other hand, need not necessarily have
implications of "holiness." 

Your turn!
Gmar Tov,
YGB

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote: 

 
> But in any event, this would seem mean that the Shach is in
> contradiction to the Chai Adam that YGB referred to (without my having
> seen the Chay Adam inside).
> 
> 
> Gmar tov
> 
> Chana
> 
> -- 
> Chana/Heather Luntz
> 

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:

> But what does that mean in terms of Rishonim?  In my case, and I dare
> say for most American Jews, geographic origin is Russia/Poland, and I
> don't think there were many (any?) Eastern European Rishonim.  I can't

Yes, but migratory patterns bind us to French/German Rishonim (I mean
"bind" in the historical sense, not halachic, for the time being).

> think of any important Polish authorities before the Rema, Russia maybe
> even later.  Should we be bound just on Rambam vs.  Rabbenu Tam, which I
> suppose corresponds to Sephardi/Ashkenazi?  Which leads to the question
> of when, and why, did the split happen?  Was it just Rambam vs. Tosfos?

No, Rishonim of Spain, Italy, N. Africa, Turkey, Bavel, E.Y., even
Provence, it seems, vs. Rishonim of France (North), Germany and Austria. 
 
> And what relation did it bear to the differing customs between Bavel and
> Eretz Yisrael through the Talmudic and Geonic period? 
>

That division, it seems, is supeseded bt the later divisions, although
hypothetically, superior scholarship in Bavel gave the Ga'onim more weight
than the Israeli Roshei Yeshiva.
 
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I am sorry to quote the message Micha sent in full, but I am forwarding it
by bcc to two of my cousins online who are more familiar with RSRH's
methodology, to ask them the same qestion I now pose to Micha (and
others): 

(Oh, BTW, I read the relevant passage in "Collected Writings" over Yom
Tov.) 

When RSRH explains the symbolism of a mitzva according to the shitta of a
specific Rishon, is that and indication that he holds that psak should be
in line with that Rishon? 

If so, those of us who are Yotzei Ashkenaz would certainly be able to
consider a psak of RSRH as a definitive guidepost. 

If, however, as I assume - out of ignorance - his symbolic
interpreatations were b'geder "drush" - then this passage cannot be
constued halachically, and is, at best, a sentimental addition once one
has independently concluded to follow the Rambam. 

(Perhaps the Ptil Techeles people sold mostly Ra'avd - which seems, to me,
at this point, not halachically logical - because, EY based, they were
prone to follow the GRA.) 

YGB

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Micha Berger wrote: 

> R' YGB writes:  : Since then R' Herschel Schachter has said that
> Ashkenazim should follow : the RT shitta of two complete strings folded. 
> I was under the imprerssion : that the Radzhiner himslef had paskened
> like the Ra'abd, but have become : aware that the actual psak he
> rendered was like the Rambam: half a string.
> 
> I wear Rambam set, tied according to the Radziner's adaptation of the
> Ba'al HaTanya's method. 
> 
> My reasoning for following the Rambam are: 
> 
> 1- Although Ashkenazim ought follow the Ba'alei HaTosfos (as R' Herschel
> Schachter) says, I already broke my minhag numerous times to follow the
> Gr"a.  (Actually, as far as I can tell, the Berger minhag for the past
> four generations was to follow the shittah we understand, over the one
> we inherited. And one thing about minhagei haGra -- they all come with
> explanations as to why the Gra chose to rule uniquely.) 
> 
> The Gaon was convinced that only one string should be blue -- "p'sil
> techeiles" is in the singular. He was unsure whether it should be 1 of 4
> (Ra'avad) or 1 of 8 (Rambam). 
> 
> 2- Hirsch, in Collected Writings III, explains tzitzis in a very
> complete way -- but only if the eighth string is the only blue one. 
> 
> 3- Until R' Heschel Schachter, the Radziner was the only acharon to
> paskin on the issue l'halachah. 
> 
> 
> I tie like the Radziner also for three reasons: 
> 
> A- It allows one to stay with an already existing minhag for tying
> tzitzis, in use with many Chassidim, and still keeps the 7,8,11,13 used
> by Ashkenazim.  By using the Ba'al HaTanya's definition of chulios
> (groupings of three, according to most opinions), minimal damage is done
> to Ashkenazi custom. 
> 
> B- I like the parallelism between 7,8,11,13 of the tzitzis, and the
> groups of m'lachos of Shabbos. The "arabaim chaseir achat"-ness is
> reinforced by the 13 groups of three formed by the chulios -- like the
> makkos. 
> 
> C- Same as #3, above. 
> 
> -mi

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Chana Luntz asks <<< How about the Cohen Gadol, who is in the beis
hamikdash and eating korbanas all the time? >>>

My understanding was that the Kohen Gadol had the privilege to step in
and take over the job that any of the Kohanim Hedyotim were doing, but I
don't recall what *had* to be done by the Kohen Gadol. Other than Yom
Kippur, was there anything that the Kohen Gadol *had* to do which would
prevent a normal family life?

Other than this point, I found Chana's post very far-reaching and well
thought out. Many of those point have been bugging me as well over the
years. This whole thread underscore what I once heard about Terumah being
very inexpensive on the open market. One would think that its kedushah
would lead to a high value, but the fact that so few people were able to
eat it led to extremely low prices.

Here's another question. Its not related to tumah, but to making the long
trip to Yerushalayim. Let's say you live 2 weeks away from Yerushalayim.
So you leave home around Rosh Chodesh Nisan, maybe a few days before.
Eight to ten days later, you meet up with the messengers who left
Yerushalayim to tell everyone when Rosh Chodesh was. And guess what! It's
Adar Sheni! So here you are, with Yerushalayim 1/2 week ahead of you,
home is 1 1/2 weeks in back of you, and Pesach is over a month away. What
do you do? My guess is that a lot of people planned on this happening, so
they deliberately left a month late, figuring Mimah Nafshach - they'd
either arrive on time for Pesach Sheni, or with luck, they'd be there for
regular Pesach!

Anyone have any real info about these sort of things?

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

<<
Could have been that the prohibition against Moavios was presumed by the hamon
am, but since it had to have come up so rarely, there was no established
halachah (or at least none known) for Boaz to rely on.
>>

I heard an interesting vort on Ploni Almoni's refusal to marry Ruth ( does
anyone have a decent transliteration of her name - Ruut, Root, Roos all look
funny ).  Ploni says "pen ashchis es nachalasi".  This has been understood in
many ways: that his current wife would object, that he would have to take
money from his current estate to but the new land, etc.

I heard, and I do not remember where, that Boaz was saying Amoni v'lo Amonis,
and that Ploni was willing to go along with that, but for the worry about his
future, that in some future generation another Bais Din would overturn Boaz's
understanding of the pasuk.

This would imply that it was not some justification of Boaz by later
generations but rather that Boaz was firmly commited to this belief all along.

As most of you have noticed, I decided to go to volume 2 as we start the new
year. I feel that changing volume number at fixed times on the calendar should
ease finding material. (Personally, I often get "Now, I remember we discussed
it back around Pesach...")

Now that the merger is roughly two months behind us, time for a little stock
taking.

Currently we are 200 digest readers, 16 individual post readers, and 77
different people have contributed so far.

So far we've had 53 digests in 69 days (roughly 3 every four days), comprising
677 emails, an average of 9.8 per day. Counting only the 57 chol days, that
comes to a little shy of 1 digest and 11.9 emails per chol day. Interestingly,
these ratios, which take into account all posts since the merger apply to the
list over the last month. It's we're not showing any growth or decline in
traffic -- although the list has been steadily growing. I guess this is a sign
of maturity.


This time of year I like to quote something I heard in the name of the
Bostoner Rebbe (of Boston and Har Nof).

Why do we say "Shanah tovah umsukah", why not "Shanah tovah"? What does
wishing a "sweet year" add?

The truth is, though, that wishing someone a "shanah tovah" is superfluous --
kol man d'avad Rachmana litav avad. Therefore, /every/ shanah is tovah. Some
forms of tov, for example, necessary onshin, or nisyonos, don't feel all that
tov. Therefore, we wish others a year that is /misukah/, in which you can
/taste/ the tov.

(Of course, the phrase comes from the "yehi ratzon" for eating an apple in
honey, and it needs to say "umsukah" in order to justify the siman. But I
like the answer, even if the question -- as I heard it -- isn't all that
strong.)

Not long after hearing this d'var Torah I wondered about the following
grammatical anomaly in the amidah. Why does it say "kadsheinu BImitzvosecha,
visein chelkeinu BIsorasecha... visamcheinu [samach nafsheinu] BIyshuasecha",
but when it comes to asking for tov, we switch the particle to "sab'einu
MItuvacha", with a mem, and not a beis?

I'd like to suggest a similar answer. The beis in the other requests is a
"beis hakli". IOW, we are asking for sanctity, a better portion, and joy
through the means of getting more mitzvos, Torah, and y'shu'ah, respectively.
However, there is no way to ask for more tov, as this would imply that what
Hashem has given us so far is lacking in tov. Instead, we ask for more
sevi'ah, contentment, with the tov we are already getting.


I'd like to take the opportunity to wish all on this list, posters and other
readers, a g'mar chasimah tovah [umsukah]!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5930 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

<<
These are serious and sincere  people teaching their members the ways of 
"Authentic Torah Judaism" (according to them).  They "Darshaned" that 
women can be eidim. Their Gitin are pasul. Their children of remarriages 
are mamzerim, possibly.
>>

One has to be careful of making overly sweeping generalizations, especially
when it comes to issues of yichus.  While I agree that MANY gittin written by
Conservative rabbis are indeed pasul, most often because of edus problems
during a mesira when a shaliach is used.  What often happens is that the
kesiva and edey chasima are fine but the get is sent to a rabbi near the
misgareshes and that rabbi chooses the edim for the mesira.  There is no
control over who will be used, and that is where the most problems arise.
This is true in the New York area, at least.

There are some sofrim that I use with my Bais Din, who, if they were to write
a Conservative get, I would trust the kashrus of the get.  In fact, one of the
sofrim that I use has written many for them, and he was the sofer for both Rav
Henkin and Rav Moshe, so he knows his halacha.  I would not trust a get,
though, if he or his son were not involved in the writing.

My point is that while I agree that there are significant problems with the
Conservative movement, we should not make blanket statements of psul.
Furthermore, and this I know not all will agree, the Conservative movement has
positives to it.  While the Schecter school system does not teach yahadus
according to the Mesora, it does keep Jews affiliated with Judaism.  We can
not take that lightly.  The fight of the Orthodox against Conservative in the
past is that Conservatism would steal away Jews from Orthodoxy.  That is not
the situation today for the most part.  We must learn to take advantage of
what Conservatism, and to some extent even Reform, has done in keeping Jews
affiliated.  We have to package our product, authentic yahadus, as an upgrade
to what they have now, and not as a totally different product ( although it IS
a different product, but to present it as such will not even get us in the
realm of their thinking ).  I know it sounds terrible to view kiruv as so much
Madison Avenue advertising, but that is the world in which we live, and if we
really do care about those who have not be exposed to authentic yahadus, and
want them to join our ranks, we must present a message that they can relate
to.  To put it in a frummer lashon - Chanoch l'naar al pi darko.

A g'mar chasima tova to all.

Eliyahu Teitz

R' YGB writes:
> When RSRH explains the symbolism of a mitzva according to the shitta of a
> specific Rishon, is that and indication that he holds that psak should be
> in line with that Rishon? 

First we need to ask if any decision rendered at a time when no one could
possibly follow through on the decision can be considered "p'sak". How could
RSRH have referred to techeiles in any way but theoretically?

Assuming that it is possible to paskin on something that isn't halachah
lima'aseh... RSRH also refrains from stating anything along the lines of "we
ought do X", rather that "this numerical ratio serves only to enhance the
significance of our symbol", and even reiterates "For according to the Rambam"
-- which sounds far from assuming that the halachah is like him.

His conclusion reads "In view of the foregoing, there is no need for further
explanation to show that the interpretation of the Ramba"m, according to which
onth the eight thread was of techeiles color, accords fully with the symbolic
significance of both the number eight and the techeiles color."

In short, it sounds like RSRH is providing a s'varah for the Rambam's shitah,
not necessarily a s'varah for the halachah.

> If, however, as I assume - out of ignorance - his symbolic
> interpreatations were b'geder "drush" - then this passage cannot be
> constued halachically, and is, at best, a sentimental addition once one
> has independently concluded to follow the Rambam. 

Pretty much why did I raise the subject? Actually, I saw the Radziner as being
the first acharon who provided a p'sak intended to be l'halachah (although I
think he was mislead about the identity of the dye).

What do you do when multiple shitos all have equal procedural weight?
Personally, I'd follow the one for which I have a s'varah. (Which is why I
tend toward nusach haGra -- the Gra has to explain why he changed the nusach,
but no one ever has to justify the original.) IOW, "drush" has some halachic
weight, when all else is balanced. No?

> (Perhaps the Ptil Techeles people sold mostly Ra'avd - which seems, to me,
> at this point, not halachically logical - because, EY based, they were
> prone to follow the GRA.) 

The Gra writes that either the Ra'avad or the Rambam was correct, because
"p'sil techeiles" implies a single string. Therefore, selling Ra'avad is
quite logical.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5930 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 23-Sep-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

You posted this interesting information a few weeks ago.
I lifted the last paragraph and sent it to a different list.


I received the following reply that I thought might interest you:

"There is a 12th century French wall painting of Christ riding on the
shoulders of God in the medieval section of the Prado. I've never seen
this iconography anywhere else. Obviously this is a different kettle of
fish to the "dwarf-giant" metaphor you are looking at - but the 11th-12th
cent French origin piqued my interest.
I'm also wondering about the possible relation of St. Christopher to the
idea.  He carried folks across streams on his shoulders, did he not?
Anyway, both connections were far to vague to send to the main list."
Stephen Mck, Adelaide.
smckenzi@arts.adelaide.edu.au



Michael Frankel wrote:

> J. Margolies writes:
> <I was wondering when someone was going to mention the concept of halachah
> k'basrai.  However, I believe, at least according to the understanding of the
> maharik (I think) - this only applied during one portion of history.>
>
> On the contrary, the Maharik understood the principle to apply to all phases of
> history, (brought down in S"uT Maharam Alshaqar, simon 54, also S"uT Mahariq,
> 94) . However the Maharik's understanding is essentially the last stage of a
> long evolution of this concept (I would commend Tashma's article on this
> subject in his latest book on ealy ashqenazic minhogim published by Magnes
> Press.) It was originally articulated in this form by the post talmudic work,
> seder tano'im vi'amoroim, and only applied to chazal. (BTW Tashma offers an
> interesting chidush, that the restiction of this kilal to amoroim after Rovoh
> is a misread, the Rovoh constraint only applies to the special case of talmid
> and rabbo, but absent this relationship, it was in fact permitted to apply this
> kilal in the pre-Rovoh era, even amoro'im against tano'im - a striking example
> is a citation to R' Hai Gaon who applied it in favor of R.Yochonon against
> Rebbe himself). In any event it is highly intersting that for a period of about
> 800 years following the close of the amoroic period it never occurred to
> anybody to propose (at least in any preserved writing) that halochoh kibasroi
> extended to include any post amoroic figures (see the rambam's into to mishne
> torah for a striking formulation of this rejection of any temporal preferences
> in favor of the best shiqul ha'daas no matter where it leads).  Only after this
> long period of conceptual stasis do we suddenly start to get radically
> escalating expansions of this kilal by the posiqim - a dovor she'omeir
> darsheini-. Apparantly the earliest recorded was by the sons of the Rosh (first
> R. Yehudo - zichron yehuda, simon 23, and then the Tur) who attempted to apply
> this principle to give precedence to their father's pisaq against a contrary
> position by the sefer ha'tirumos). The earliest formulations of this expansive
> view did not literally extend it to their own contemporaries, but generally
> restricted it to some earlier authoritative rishon  such as the Maharam
> mi'Rutenberg or the Rashboh. Subsequently this was broadened yet further to
> include posiqim right up to contemporary times.    However, this has alsways
> been something of an ashqenazic shitoh.  Thus the maharam alshaqar mocked the
> tishuvoh of mahariq (essentially on the reasonable grounds of nosatoh
> divorechoh li'shiurin, i.e. any cutoff is pretty arbitrary), while the remoh
> (intro to darchei moshe) gives one of his reasons for writing precisely to
> counter the Shulchon Aruch's rejection of the principle of basroi (after all,
> the SA looked to the big three, essentially ignoring lesser though later
> lights, which remoh didn't like).
>
> The Dwarves and Why Then?
> We mentioned the 800 year stasis in the halachic scope of this qilal before its
> expanded application by at least the ashqenazi posiqim.  J. Margolis has
> implicitly recognized this problem and offered an innovative chdush to explain
> it.  Thus he writes: <The earliest generations didn't have all of the toseftas
> and braisos in front of them and each rebbe taught only the braisos that he had
> a mesorah for.  This meant that each school really didn't have all of the
> information necesary to make a psak.  As technology and communication improved
> and the braisos and toseftas became more well known (and I guess codified)
> giving everyone access to all of the pertinent information on an issue - the
> concept of halacha k'basrai came into effect as the later generations were
> better equipped to pasken as they had access to a better collection of the
> previous generation's literature >
> this would neatly solve our problem if true. Unfortunately (imho of course) it
> is not.  After the close of the talmud there is absolutely no reason to think,
> absent specific proof, that each rebbe only taught those baraisos "he had a
> mesoroh for" or that lists of baraisos/tosephtos/etc only existed in widely
> separated components awaiting some technological/communications advances to
> unite them.  The unification work in fact was completed long before the close
> of the talmudic period.  if anything, one might suspect that individual
> collections would tend to become even more lost over the course of the
> intervening centuries, as happened with many other works.  Secondly -though
> irrelevant to the argument - communications technology didn't actually improve
> that much.
>
> Thus one must look elsewhere for a catalyst.  It is Tashma's interesting
> suggestion that we have Christian scholasticism to thank, precisely by their
> contribution of the powerful metaphor of dwarves riding giants mentioned by
> Joel, and thus seeing further.  The dwarf-giant moshol was first formulated by
> Bernard of Chartres, a younger contemporary of Rashi's and made an immdediate
> and deep impression on the intellectual elite of the day.  The Christians too
> had to cope with the intellectual problem of extreme reverence for early
> authorities while needing to disagree with them in the face of evolving
> scientific and philosophic appreciations.  The dwarf-giant metaphor neatly
> solved their problem, preserving an appreciation of the unequaled
> intellectual/spiritual genius of yore, but satisfyingly rationalizing greater
> understanding or authority by the pygmies of the present.  this metaphor also
> infltrated and powerfully affected the intellectual jewish world as well, at
> least the ashqenazi world which became familiar with it. the first explicit
> citation of dwarves and gisnts in a jewish context was, seemingly, by the
> Tosephos Rid (R. Yeshaya DeTrani, tishuvoh #2) in 1250.  Interstingly his
> tishuvoh explicitly cites the "chachimei hapilosophim" probably christian, as
> his source for this metaphor.  The metaphor also neatly explains the mahariq's
> apparently new demand that the basroi would need to actally have seen all of
> the qamoi's works, else the qilal would not apply - if the dwarf will not
> actually ride the giant we no longer assume that he sees further. With the
> conceptual problem thus solved, it is not hard to posit how a qilal like
> halochoh kibasroi might find it easier to flourish.  Interestingly as well,
> this metaphor was not well known in the eastern world, and with the
> intellectual spade work not done, the early sephardim, specifically including
> the shulchon aruch - and possibly the very latest ones as well - do not seem to
> have ever accepted this qilal.  Thus the dwarf on the sholders is the perfect
> complement to the notion of yeridas hadoros, whatever that may mean, and Joel's
> final comment that: < I have always understood the concept of yeridas hadoros
> to be in direct opposition to the shoulders theory.  Any other opinions?> would
> seem misplaced. (I actually don't mean to pick on joel, whose contributions
> have always seemed interesting,  but what's a guy gonna do?)
>
> Mechy Frankel                   frankel@hq.dswa.mil



--
Ari Zivotofsky, Ph.D.
LSR / NEI / NIH
Building 49 / Room 2A50
Bethesda, MD 20892-4435

(301) 496-3446 (ph)
(301) 402-0511 (fax)

Sorry about that long note that just went to the whole list.
I intended it for Mechy Frankel only.

Ari

Daniel Eidensohn writes:

<<<The Dor Revi'i (Introduction to Chulin) notes with amazement that
Rashi apparently
did not agree with him!. He cites Rashi (Shavuos 4a s.v. U'Mishna) and
Bava Metzia
(33a) as believing that the Mishna was only written down many years
after Rebbe. He
cites the R'shash (Shavuos 4a) who also understands Rashi that
way.>>>

I am glad to see that you have read the Dor Revi'i, but please don't put
words into his mouth.  He registers amazement that Rashi in the cited
references seems to suggest that the Mishnah was not written down
until after Rebi's death.  Such a view is contrary to the widespread view
of the Rishonim, especially Rambam, and the Geonim that Rebi was the
"author" of the Mishnah.  So I don't see why you chose to
mischaracterize his amazement in the way you did.  In the nineteenth
century, scholars like R. Z. H. Chajes, and the R'shash argued that the
Mishnah was not reduced to writing in the time of Rebi, and they relied
on the cited statements by Rashi as support for their position.  More
recent scholarship does not necessarily support their view, see for
example, H. Albeck, Introduction to the Mishnah.  Nor is it obvious to me
that the cited Rashis cannot be read in a way that is consistent with the
traditional view that Rebi did produce an authoritative version of the
Mishnah.  The confusion arises from the presumption that just because
there were a few written copies of Rebi's Mishnah, that they were
readily available, free from scribal errors, and did not undergo some
revision during his lifetime.  So if the Dor Revi'i is open to crtique it may be
for too readily accepting the interpretation of Rashi suggested by the
R'shash.

<<<This together with the fact I mentioned before - that the Amoraim
[especially Rav and Rav Chiya] could and did argue with Tannaic
sources makes the Dor Revi'i's suggested source of
authority less plausible then the others.>>>

Your source for the supposed ability of Amoraim to argue with Tannaitic
sources is worth further consideration.  The gemara in Berachot
23b-24a rules that the halachah follows the opinion of Shmuel even
though his opinion is definitively refuted by a beraita.  This is an
exception that proves the rule, as does the reference to Rav and Rebi
Chiya, who are explicitly granted Tannaitic status.  The halachah should
follow the beraita authored by a Tanna against Shmuel.  That is why the
Rosh, as you observe, tries to explain the apparent anomaly that the
halachah follows a refuted Amoraic opinion.  The Rosh says:  "Even
though an Amora has the right to confound [l'shabesh] a beraita, . . ., this
is only where the Amora knows the beraita and confounds [m'shabesh]
it.  But if an Amora expresses an opinion based on his own reasoning
and a beraita is found that contradicts him, we rely on the beraita,
because [we assume that] if the Amora had known the beraita he would
not have disputed [palig] it."  The Rosh makes a distinction between
confouding [shabesh] and disputing [palig].  Shabesh seems to refer to
some confusion in the text.  E.g., "m'shabeshta hi" in reference to some
corruption in the text of a quoted source.  Thus, an Amora may dispute a
beraita by arguing that its text has been corrupted.  But that is clearly
more difficult to do in the case of a mishnah than a beraita (though the
gemara sometimes asserts concerning a mishnah, hisurei mehs'ra)
because the beraitot were not as carefully edited as the mishnayot, and
hence are less reliable and authoritative than mishnayot.  Can you cite
any cases where the opinion of an Amora is followed against a contrary
mishnah?  If I am right on this point, we would have further support for
the view of the Dor Revi'i that the authority of Tannaim relative to
Amoraim derived not from the intrinsic superiority of the former compared
to the latter, but to the creation of an authoritative written text, the
Mishnah, with which no dispute would subsequently be tolerated
(although even here some flexibility is possible, witness occasional
halachic decisions that contradict Biblical text)

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:I heard an interesting vort on Ploni Almoni's refusal to
marry Ruth ( does

> I heard, and I do not remember where, that Boaz was saying Amoni v'lo Amonis,
> and that Ploni was willing to go along with that, but for the worry about his
> future, that in some future generation another Bais Din would overturn Boaz's
> understanding of the pasuk.
>

This is the Brisker Rav Rav Yitzchak Zev. It is discussed in R' Lampel's Dynamics
of Dispute page 106-107

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]