Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 016

Friday, October 9 1998

• Re: Or Lagoyim, negetive mesorah, eidah/am
• inappropriate statement
• Re: panim hadashot (enough already)
• How to Tie Tzitzis
• Re: inappropriate statement
• Re: panim hadashot (enough already)
• revising the Dor Revi'i
• Re: inappropriate statement
• Re: Avodah V2 #15
• Darchei Noam

           ... and so commanded Moshe Rabbeinu from the Pi HaGvurah to force all
           those who come into the world to accept those mitzvos that were
           commanded to descendants of Noach. And whoever doesn't accept them
           should be killed. And someone who does accept them is the one called
           a Ger Toshav...

           Question: as I assume you are not advocating killing goyim, what
           is the point you wish to advance?  As long as the Rambam is on
           the table, the ambiguity of the term 'force' is obvious.  If by
           'force' the Rambam means the threat of death (connecting the
           first and second halfs of the statement), it is moot l'ma'aseh.

           Can someone please define and provide a source for the concept
           of 'negetive mesorah' I've seen thrown out?   The Bais HaLevi
           (as presenetd in Shiurim L'Zecher Aba Mori in the shiur on
           mesorah) argues that some halachos are in the domain of
           analysis/textual proof and inquiry, others, like techeyles, are
           dependent on a mesorah (mimetic tradition, to use the Haym
           Soloveitchik jargon).  No 'negetive mesorah' concept.

           The split between eidah/am is cited in printed material of the
           Rav, I believe in one of the pieces in Divrei Hagot V'ha'aracha,
           but I have to double check.

           Good Shabbos,

           Chaim B.

Elie Ginsparg wrote:

<<<
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, David Glasner wrote:
 But I am afraid that I must also plead guilty to having
> least favorite p'sukim in Chumash as well.  I generally try to avoid
> mention of the p'sukim mandating genocide of the Canaanites, Hittites,
> Emorites, et al.  I also think that we should narrow the application of the
> injunction lo yavo mamzer b'kahal hashem to the maximum extent
> possible.  And as I recall R. Akiva and R. Tarfon state that if they had
> been judges when the death penalty was still in force, no one would
> ever have been executed.  Chazal apparently were also uncomfortable
> enough with the p'sukim of ben sorer u'moreh that they interpreted them
> in a way that made it impossible that the prescribed punishment ever did
> or would actually be applied.

Unless I'm missing something you're post gives me the impression that what
YOU think is good and right has some importance in the world of Torah. Of
course this is incorrect, the torah sets the dtandards of what is emes.
I'm sorry that you don't like the pasukim that tell us to kill the 7
nations but this was the will of Hashem so it's correct---i'm not sure why
you think you have a right to pass judgement of the will of HAshem.
Furthermore the implication that Chazal made drashas to serve their own
conscience is absurd and completely untrue. Chazal had mesorah from Moshe
as well as the ability to decide truth objectively based on the 13
principles---what they felt was right or wrong didn't enter the picture.
Just because you have a problem in that you believe that you have a right
to judge Hashems morals isn't a license to project that on
Chazal, Chazal  were men of complete emes. Your post is very disturbing
because the next step is to say I don't know why women shouldn't be
witnesses, I'll think I'll have them sign on a get. Then you'll really
have
to deal with "lo yavo mamzer bkahal":)
>>>

Well if the idea of committing mass murder on thousands upon thousands of defenseless men, women, children, and babies gives you not the slightest pause, you are certainly a better person than I am.  But I admit that it gives me a great deal of pause, and I categorically reject the idea that it is asur or treif or apikorsus even to give voice to oneĒs misgivings and inner conflicts about such issues.  And just to keep the record straight I did not claim any right to pass judgment on the Ribbono shel Olam when I said that I had difficulty with those pĒsukim, though you seem quite willing to pass judgment on me.  And excuse me, but it is simply not correct to say that what anyone -- forget about me -- thinks about what is good and right has no importance in Torah.  A sĒvara is as powerful as the scripture.  Chazal deduce the obligation not to be killed rather than to kill an innocent person from a pure sĒvara (Is your blood any redder than the other personĒs?) not from the thirt!
een midot or from any tradition from Moshe.   (I am writing this cold, so I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented the relevant sources.)   If there are no standards of right and wrong independent of the Torah, how can one  make any sense of the notion of lifnim mĒsharet ha-din or the idea of darchei shalom?  Does the halachah require you, for example to prevent starvation, to eat human flesh which involves no issur dĒoraita before eating nĒveilot and treifot which does?

If Chazal never consulted their own consciences, were men of complete emes, whose standards are completely established in the Torah, and if they relied only on traditions from Moshe and the thirteen midot, how is it possible that they ever disagreed?  Why did R. Akiva and R. Tarfon say that if they had been judges no one would have ever been executed while R. Shimon b. Gamliel replied critically that if they had done so, they would have caused murderers to multiply?  If Chazal were totally subservient to the will of the Ribbono shel Olam and exercised no independent judgment about right and wrong, how did they dare to disregard the bat kol that announced that the halachah followed the opinion of R. Eliezer and, instead, determined that the halachah accords with the opinion of R. Joshua, and then, as if that werenĒt enough, excommunicated R. Eliezer when he refused to recant his own opinion which the Ribbono shel Olam had explicitly confirmed?  And how do you explain the final !
response of the Ribbono shel Olam (Bava Metzia 58-59) "hiech vĒamar Ąnitzhuni banai, nitzhuni banaiĒ"?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

R. YGB writes:

>You know, it struck me that I did not clarify an important point, which
>may have lead people to misunderstand my position vis-a-vis the Chasam
>Sofer.

With respect, the only thing clear about your position vis a vis the
Hatam Sofer is that it changes in every post.  Since last month, you
have suggested that the Hatam Sofer
>"meant it b'derech shakla v'tarya, v'lo l'halacha" (9/17)
>never said it (9/18)
>did say it (9/18)
>said it, but it doesn't matter because we have no mesorah to that effect
(9/28)
>said it, but public policy nevertheless requires shev ve-al taaseh (10/3)

Now you write:

>The CS does not quote the Ritva and Nimmulei Yosef, then reject them. I think
>that when writing the Chiddushim he either did not see them or forgot them
>- - otherwise he would have cited them. Had he seen or remembered them, he
>would have quoted them. True, I cannot prove this. But we cannot prove
>otherwise. Safek berachos requires us to be machmir. It's that simple :-).

The words have changed but the song remains the same.  Though your
argument is logical, it is hardly compelling.  Readers with a long
memory will remember that NO subsequent Rishon or major Aharon quotes
either Ritva or Nimmukei Yosef.  I interpret this to mean that this
particular shitah was either consciously or unconsciously rejected by
all relevant authorities and therefore need not be taken into account
halakhah le-ma`aseh.  You evidently feel differently.  I leave it to the
tzibbur to decide between your interpretation and mine.

Shabbat shalom and mo'ed tov,

Eli Clark

I did some research when I was trying to figure out the "right" way to tie
tzitzis with techeiles. This document started out as
http://www.tekhelet.co.il/guide.htm, and I made changes and enlargements as I
went.

Don't let the length fool you into thinking a depth of research that isn't
there. I probably misunderstood more than one position, etc... Take it at what
it's worth: one person's notes. Please feel free to suggest corrections and
ammendments.


			How to Tie Tzitzis


The Color of the Strings:

    How many strings does one attach? "Not less than 3" is the opinion of Beis
    Hillel. Beis Shammai say, "Three strings of white wool, and one techeiles.
    The halachah is according to Beis Shammai.
                                      Sifrei, Shelach 115 (see also Menachos
                                      41b where the same debate and
                                      conclusion is recorded)

The Ra'ava"d rules like the literal reading of Beis Shammai, yielding 6 string
ends that are white, and two that are blue. The Ramba"m holds 7 and one,
the last string "of techeiles" is actually spun so that one side is blue
and the other is white.

The motivation behind these two opinions is the text of the Chumash (said
in Shema), which calls it "piseel techeilesa thread [in the singular]
of blue". The debate is whether a thread means one doubled over string,
or one end of the string.

    How many strings are attached? "Not less than 3 strings" according to Beis
    Hillel. Beis Shammai say, "Four strings of techeiles, and four strings of
    white. The halachah is according to Beis Shammai.
                                              Ibid. 234

This is followed by Rash"i and Tosafos who understand Beis Shammai to be
referring to four doubled over strings, two of each color, which would make
four ends hanging out of the windings of each color.

The source for this is in Devorim: "gidilim taaseh lichah you shall make
cords for yourself". Multiple cords on each corner would indicate at least
two pairs of strings. Also, Tosafos appeal to the symmetry between the
mitzvos of blue and white strings to assert that the numbers should be equal.

The Gr"a (on Shulchan Aruch 11, "ViTos'", final conclusion) corrects the
language of the second Sifrei to make it conform to the first. He sees no
way around the words "piseel techeiles", but is unsure whether the Ramba"m
or Raavad is correct.

Today, must of us hold that the identity of the marine animal "chilazon"
necessary for making techeiles is unknown. Rash"i (Menachos 38a) writes,
and Tosafos and the Ro"sh concur, that the blue strings are replaced by white
ones, and not just omitted. Which is why we wear 4 white strings (8 ends).

Rav Gershon Henoch of Radzin identified the chilazon with the cuttlefish,
a squid-like animal. The cuttlefish ink is processed to make a blue dye. This
is what is worn today by Radziner and Breslover Chassidim.

More recently, a means of making a dye from the snail murex trunculus was
found. Many, mostly in the modern Orthodox and Hesder communities, have
started wearing strings with this dye.


Kireechos - Windings:

In Ashkenazi custom a winding is simple. Take the shamash, the winding string,
and wrap it around the others.

Sepharadim make a loop out of the shamash and wind around the others and
through the loop, and then tighten. When done, there is a daisy chain down
the side of the windings.

The Baal HaTanya understood the Ar"is custom to be similar to the Sepharadi,
but a single loop is used to make groups of three windings (as discussed
below). It is unclear if the need for the loop is to satisfy the notion of
kireechos alone, or to make kisharim.

Yemenite custom is more complex, and combines the ideas of kireechos and
kisharim. You make a loop and wind three times around the other strings and
through the loop. The windings are then unwound from the loop side, moving
them to the loop itself, which is not a knot that appears as three windings
from the outside.


Kisharim and Chulyos - Knots and Chain-links:

Yemenite and possibly the Ar"is definition of "kesher" is that the winding
is knotted together. (The Sepharadi knot per winding is not a "kesher" as we
shall see, there is at most one knot per chulyah, not per kireechah.) Tosafos
reject this idea, explaining that we consistently find the Talmud using the
word "kesher" to mean a double knot (the laws of Shabbos, for example). They
therefore define kesher as double knotting all 8 strings.

    Rava says. "This implies one must tie a knot after each and every chulyah."
                                          Ibid.

    Rava says. "This implies that the uppermost knot is an obligation from the
    Torah".
                                          Menachos 39a

It is unclear from the flow of the Gemara whether the second statement is
in addition to or a replacement for the first. It is also unclear if the
"uppermost knot" means the one closest to the garment or furthest.

    "Tzitzis" equals 600 [in gematria], 8 strings and 5 knots add up to 613
    [the number of mitzvos in the Torah].
                                          Tanchuma, Korach 12

This notion is repeated by Rash"i on Parshas Shelach and on Menachos.

    What is the measure of a chulyah? We learned that Rebbe said, "So that
    you can wind, then again, and a third time. We learned that one who
    minimizes shouldnt have less than seven, and one who maximizes may not
    exceed 13. One who minimizes shouldnt have less than 7: corresponding to
    the seven heavens, and one who maximizes may not exceed 13: corresponding
    to the 7 heavens and the six spaces between them.
                                          Menachos 39a

Most read this gemara to mean that tzitzis should have 7 to 13 chulyos, and
each chulyah consists of a string wound around the others three times. See,
for example, Rash"i ad loc.

This presents us with a dilemma, since a knot after each chulyah, plus
possibly one on top, would yield 7 to 14 (13 chulyos plus 1) knots, not the
five of the medrash.

The Rambam appears to ignore the medrash and requires one knot per
chulyah. This is justifiable since the Tanchuma is not a halachic work,
and the Gemara ignores the view.

The Yemenites (as is their wont) largely follow the Rambam, and make 13 sets
of winding-knots. In addition, they make a knot after all the windings as
the uppermost knot Rava tells us the Torah requires.

There are a number of opinions that assume the Gemara rejects the first
statement of Rava as an incorrect variant of the final statement. This is only
workable with the color scheme of Rav Amram Gaon, where the chulyos alternate
color, first white, then blue, then white ... with an odd number of chulyos
(either 7, 9, 11 or 13 chulyos of three windings) so that the last chulyah
is also white. In this way, the chulyos are distinguished by color, and do
not need separating or grouping knots to be distinct.

The Raavad, based on Rav Natrunai Gaon, alternates between the individual
windings, so that each chulyah is white,blue,white,blue...,white He reads
the Gemara as setting the number of kireechos per chulyah as being between
7 and 13, unlike what weve assumed so far. There are only four chulyos,
so that they may fit between the 5 knots of the Tanchuma.

A fourth resolution is to bifurcate the notion of kesher into the 5 knots
of the medrash and the knot for each chulyah. This is how the Radziner Rebbe
zt"l understood the Baal HaTanyas interpretation of the Ar"i. The knots on the
side are the "knots after each chulyah". In addition there are 5 double knots.

The last position is that of the Ro"sh, the Tosafos and Rash"i who do not
resolve the problem. However, without techeiles, the number of windings
per chulyah and the number of chulyos is unimportant, and can be decided
to fit whatever symbolism youd like. Since there is a source for 5 knots,
4 chulyos of symbolic length between them is normal.

In summary:

I Colors of strings

    1- Raavad: 3 white, 1 blue
    2- Rambam: 3-1/2 white, ― blue
    3- Rash"i, Tosafos: 2 white, 2 blue

II Types of kireechos:

     1- Ashkenazi: one simple wrap (according to the Radziner, the Ba'al
        HaTanya's loop is a knot, not part of the winding)
     2- Sepharad: loop, and then wrap through the loop
     3- Yemen: one knotted loop of three windings

III Types of kisharim:

     1- Yemen: a- one knotted loop of three windings;
               b- one final biblical knot
     2- Tosafos: 5 double knots
     3- Baal HaTanya: a- tying together the windings of the chulyah;
                      b- 5 double knots

III Colors of kireechos:

     1- Tosafos: all blue
     2- Rambam: first winding and last winding white, the rest blue
     3- Rav Natrunai Gaon: alternate white, blue, white ... insuring that you
        start and end with white
     4- Rav Amram Gaon: alternate chulyos between white and blue, the first
        and last must be white; each chulyah is a single color

IV Types of Chulyos:

     1- Rambam: three windings, made distinct by knotting (Yemen: this means
        the winding-knot); 7 to 13 chulyos
     2- Rav Amram Gaon derivatives: three windings, made distinct by color (as
        above) with 5 knots interspersed; 7-13 chulyos
     3- Ra'avad: 7, 9, 11, or 13 windings of alternating color (R' Natruna'i,
        above); 4 chulyos
     4- Ro"sh (without techeiles): arbitrary number of windings, 4 chulyos

Rulings:

1- Ashkenaz:

Most Ashkenazim do not believe we can currently make techeiles. They therefore
follow the Ro"sh and wind four chulyos to accommodate five knots. The number
of windings total 39, the same as 13 chulyos of 3 kireechos. This number
of windings isnt chosen for "laws of tzitzis reasons" but to symbolize the
connection to the 39 categories of work (melachos) prohibited on Shabbos. Each
chulyah has 7, 8, 11 and 13 windings, respectively. The melachos are also
broken down into 4 groups: 13 related to crops, 11 are about making clothing,
8 for cooking and 7 miscellaneous.

Each knot is a double knot of all 8 strings, following Tosafos.

2- Sepharad:

Sepharadim also do not use one of the blue dies, and also rely on the
Ro"sh. The two differences with Ashkenazi custom are in the definition of
chulyah, where the Sepharadim require a loop on the side, and in the number
of windings of each chulyah. Sepharadim wind 10, 5 6 and 5 windings in the
four chulyos, following the gematria for each letter in the tetragrammaton.

3- Yemen:

The Yemenite community make 13 chulyos of three knotted windings each (see
above), in accordance with the Rambam, and one final knot to fulfil the
requirement of the Torah according to Rava. There are no double knots. The
first and last kireechos are white.

4- Rambam, version II:

The Rambam is unclear in how he defined a kesher. Another understanding is
that he requires a 13 chulyos placed between 14 double knots. The first and
last kireechos are white.

5- Tosafos I:

The first opinion in Tosafos also 13 chulyos (same colors) placed between
14 double knots. The difference is that all the kireechos are blue.

6- Shulchan Aruch HaRav

The Shulchan Aruch HaRav, and therefore a number of forms of Chassidus,
follow the Ari, in that the knots around the chulyos are independent of the
four double knots. They make 13 chulyos of three windings each, but also
place double knots after 7, 8, 11 and 13 windings like other Ashkenazim. This
means that the second and fourth knots split chulyos into two, so that the
total pattern is:

    double-knot;
    3 in one side-knot, 3, 1; double-knot;
    2, 3, 3; double-knot;
    3, 3, 3, 2; double-knot;
    1, 3, 3, 3, 3; double-knot

6a- Radzin and Breslov:

They use cuttlefish dye, and follow the Rambam's ruling that the first and
last winding be white. Other than that, they follow the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.

7- Raavad:

The Raavad had 4 chulyos between 5 double knots. The windings of each
chulyah alternate in color (following R Natrunai), but must begin and end
with white. His chulyos were therefore 7, 9, 11 or 13 windings wide.

8- Rav Amram Gaon:

Rav Amram Gaon defined chulyah as a stripe made by three windings of one
color. A "kesher" is a loop on the side, to tie together the windings. He
made 7, 9, 11, or 13 chulyos starting with white and alternating in color
to end with white.

8a- Baal Haittur:

The Baal Haittur only differed in that defined "kesher" like Tosafos,
a double knot, and so he alternated the stripes with double knots.

9- Tosafos II and variants:

In these opinions, there are 5 knots. Chulyos are three windings each of
alternating color as per Rav Amram Gaon. Therefore they are distinguished
by color, and dont require knots to separate them. (Following the Tanchuma
over the first quote of Rava.) There are three variants:

            Chinuch   Gr"a      Tosafos
            """"""""  """""""   """"""""
             *knot*    *knot*    *knot*
            white     white     white
            blue      blue      blue
            white     white      *knot*
             *knot*   blue      white
            blue       *knot*   blue
            white     white      *knot*
            blue      blue      white
             *knot*   white     blue
            white     blue       *knot*
            blue       *knot*   white
            white     white      *knot*
             *knot*   blue
            blue      white
            white     blue
            blue       *knot*   (Note the similarity between the Gr"a and
            white     white     Tosafos, with the Gr"a extending the same
             *knot*    *knot*   basic idea to 13 chulyos.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

A request: can this debate keep the focus on substantive issues and not
[mis]characterizations about the people writing (and [mis] is there so
satisfy everyone).

On the issue of whether an ethic exists outside halacha, Chazaon Ish in
Emunah U'Bitachon holds no, but clearly a strong case can be made for such
a position (As D. Glassner has done). However, that in no way impacts on
the objectivity of Chazal as legislators.  As a halachic jew I must take up
arms and kill the seven nations as appropriate, yet as a humanist (were I
one), I would not do so with the same simcha shel mitzva as netilat lulav.
"Mah Shechina omeret - kalani m'roshi", etc. all for a hung sinner - there
is reflection and pause, whether because of the Torah's emphsis on v'chay
bahem, or because of a moral conviction that human life is scared, but that
does not serve to compromise our sense of obligation.  The doctor who looks
at a  test and discovers incurable disease in a patient will certainly shed
tears, but that in no way prevents him/her from accurately and objectively
making the painful diagnosis.

-Chaim B.

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> With respect, the only thing clear about your position vis a vis the
> Hatam Sofer is that it changes in every post.  Since last month, you
> have suggested that the Hatam Sofer
> >"meant it b'derech shakla v'tarya, v'lo l'halacha" (9/17)

Stand by this - as a possibility.

> >never said it (9/18)

Retracted this - did so already almost immediately.

> >did say it (9/18)

As above.

> >said it, but it doesn't matter because we have no mesorah to that effect
> (9/28)

Stand by this - have not seen it refuted adequately.

> >said it, but public policy nevertheless requires shev ve-al taaseh (10/3)

Public policy = lack of mesorah. I think you mistook this to mean that I
meant this as  having something to do with some other public policy other
than safek berachos.

> Now you write: 
> 
> >The CS does not quote the Ritva and Nimmulei Yosef, then reject them. I think
> >that when writing the Chiddushim he either did not see them or forgot them
> >- - otherwise he would have cited them. Had he seen or remembered them, he
> >would have quoted them. True, I cannot prove this. But we cannot prove
> >otherwise. Safek berachos requires us to be machmir. It's that simple :-).
> 
> The words have changed but the song remains the same.  Though your
> argument is logical, it is hardly compelling.  Readers with a long


Thank you for your haskomo. The moment my argument (finally!) becomes
logical, it *is* compelling, because of safek beracha l'vatala.

> memory will remember that NO subsequent Rishon or major Aharon quotes
> either Ritva or Nimmukei Yosef.  I interpret this to mean that this
> particular shitah was either consciously or unconsciously rejected by
> all relevant authorities and therefore need not be taken into account
> halakhah le-ma`aseh.  You evidently feel differently.  I leave it to the
> tzibbur to decide between your interpretation and mine. 
> 

You may have my haskomo as well. There is a logic to your position, but it
is certainly not compelling, otherwise, I too would have been compelled.
In the absence of that compelling logic, the problem of safek beracha
l'vatala remains insurmountable.

Finally - and this is why I am not content to let you have the last word -
because of the nature of this issue, it is not up to "the tzibbur" to
decide. This is a very strange statement on your part. It is up to a bona
fide Posek of stature to decide, and before anyone follows your position
(other than yourself - it is a free country!) halacha l'ma'aseh, the
halachic process requires them to consult a Posek of stature to determine
the matter.

> Shabbat shalom and mo'ed tov,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

Likewise!

YGB

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

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

<<<
> You seem to assume that the Mishnah as we now know it actually
> existed, before it was finally written down.  But the canonical text that
> now exists came into being only for the purpose of being written
down.

> Otherwise the Mishnayot would have remained more or less in the
form
> of the many scattered beraitot quoted in the Talmud that were never
> compiled into an official edition.

I think it is admirable how you have tried to defend the Dor Revi'i. At this
point, I don't really understand what you are trying to say. Your position
does
not seem to be that of the Dor Revi'i - though you obviously feel it is. I
apologize for being dense - but I just don't get your explanation to my
questions.
I think that perhaps your concept of the Oral Law and the role of Chazal
is
different than I and others such as Elie Ginsparg understand it.
>>>

Thank you.  I was responding to your suggestion that I might be saying
that what made the Mishnah authoritative was that it was physically
being written down, and until that moment when ink hit paper it was not
authoritative.  My point is that there was a process of creating an official
text from the vast amount of Tannaitic material, only some of which was
included in the Mishnah, some in the Tosefta, some in other collections
like the Sifri, and some left as stam beraitot.  So one needs a broader
notion of what made the Mishnah authoritative than the mere physical act
of putting ink to paper.  That is why the Dor Revi'i himself emphasizes the
distinction already made by the Rambam between private written crib
sheets and a canonical text created for the purpose of written
transmission.   The concept of the Oral Law that I am discussing (tot he
best of my ability) is indeed the Dor Revi'i's and, though not perfectly in
accord with the Rambam's it is closely related to it, particularly the
fundamental importance of Mamrim 2:1.

 <<<
The purpose of a separate Oral Torah was to
> allow continuous development of and, when necessary through new
> drashot or adoption of previously rejected ones ("eilu v'eilu . . ."),
change
> in the halachah by the Sanhedrin.  Otherwise, the Ribbono shel Olam
> could have just attached an expanded version of the Shulchan Aruch
as
> a written appendix to sefer Devarim.

I really find this last statement difficult to accept. There was a separate
Oral
Torah from the beginning. Rebbe did not create it. What were Hillel and
Shammai
and others discussing?  - Sorry but  I really don't understand your
position.
Perhaps someone out there can help
>>>

Of course there was a separate Oral Law from the beginning.  Rebi
transformed what had been a relatively unsystematic open-ended set of
oral teachings into a fixed written text.  In so doing he transformed its
nature, making it less Oral, less organic, and more akin to the Written
Law than it had been.  The process has continued in the direction of
increasing codification of final p'sak.  Given the absence, rahmana litzlan,
of a Sanhedrin, this process was necessary, but it isn't the way it was
supposed to be, which is why we constantly pray hashivah shoftaich
k'varishonah (even before the restoration of the Davidic dynasty!). 

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, David Glasner wrote:

> pĒsukim, though you seem quite willing to pass judgment on me.  And
> excuse me, but it is simply not correct to say that what anyone --
> forget about me -- thinks about what is good and right has no importance
> in Torah.  A sĒvara is as powerful as the scripturre.  Chazal deduce the

R' Elie and R' Shraga have dealt thoroughly and powerfully with statements
that I, too, consider inappropriate, to say the least, but I do want to
point out that it is not this kind of sevara that Chazal praised - meaning
every "perspective" we, in our limited understanding of Creation, good,
evil, reward and punishment, bring to bear. This is not a question of
"logic" - although you may phrase it that way - but of "morality" - and
you are blurring a distinction in a manner that, with respect, I find
borders on sophistry.

Further, R' David, as a descendant of the "Dor Revi'i" are you not also a
descendant of the Chasam Sofer. Recall his beautiful interpretation in the
Teshuvos 6:85 of the Gemara at the beginning of Bameh Madlikin on "Anan
k'etzba b'kira l'sevara" - we are like a finger twisting wax in every
which direction when it comes to sevara - if the CS said that about his
own sevaros, anan ketilei kanya b'agma, ma neima?

YGB

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

Dear Micha:

    I have a copy of the teshuva, both the xerox English translation and the
Yidddish original (published in the Tog-Morgenjornal).  If you or anyone
else would like a copy, please E-mail me a postage address and I will be
most happy to forward it to you.

Best wishes,

Levi Reisman

I've had to send a lot of private email lately, and this is my second one to
the list.

Things have gotten out of hand.

If you read something that seems blatantly foolish, self-contradictory, or
even apikursus, you owe it to the poster to read it again. Simple "dan likaf
zichus" should obligate one to see if you misunderstood, and even if you
couldn't, you probably did. Or maybe he misspoke. Or maybe what you took as a
kushya is really a sh'eilah; not presenting a doubt about some ikkar, but
asking for explanation.

Then, you must speak from a position of "I don't understand how you can say
...." The belittling and attacking that's been going on the past week can't
continue.

Aside from the issurim involved, I don't need to spend my time supporting a
venue for people to launch personal attacks at each other. I'd rather shut
down the list.

Let's get back to issues.


On a more minor note:

I'm tired of every halachic argument ending with a pair of emails from the
respective contributors. "But he's paskening!" So, let's see if we can throw
in a l'fi aniyas da'ati (LAD), IMHO, or just avoid the authoritative tone
altogether. However, post facto, the other person wasn't trying to paskin any
more than you were. He was presenting his opinion of what he thought the
halachah ought to be -- just as you were.

-mi

PS: The use of the male "he" is because I haven't had similar problems from
    the women amongst us. "Amoni v'lo amonis". <grin>

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 5944 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 9-Oct-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

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


[ 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 ]