Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 022

Friday, October 16 1998

• Re: Avodah V2 #19 Halocho, Mesorah, & Ashkenaz
• Re: Avodah V2 #19 More on chumros
• Re: Avodah V2 #19 Halocho, Mesorah, & Ashkenaz
• RE:Ethic Independent of Halakha
• rambam - yerushalmi
• Avodah V2 #21 -Reply
• Re: Avodah V2 #18 Halachi legalism
• RE: ko'ah ha-sevara - Hatam Sofer
• Re: Avodah V2 #21 Halahci Process Lo Bashomyaim He
• Re: Ethic Independent of Halakha
• Re: dateline questions
• Re: rambam - yerushalmi
• RE: ko'ah ha-sevara - Hatam Sofer
• Irvuv
• Re: dateline questions

     
     >>Rav Yosef Karo (Introduction to the Beis Yosef on the Tur) explains 
     that there are many strong questions that have been raised by Tosfos 
     and others concerning the various halachic alternatives. It is an 
     impossible task to answer them properly and show why one position is 
     the correct one. He solved the problem by ignoring the traditional 
     approach of trying to find Truth and took the pragmatic approach of 
     following the majority of Rosh, Rif and Rambam.  The Mishna Berura 
     seems to have taken a similar pragmatic approach. The result is 
     halacha that works (though is not conceptually consistent) and is 
     acceptable to a broader base than one based upon one posek's view of 
     Truth.<<
     
     A professor of mine attempted to reconcile this a bit.  It takes a bit 
     of a stretch, and it's been 25 years, so I'll do my best.
     
     Essentially, he holds that
     1) The early Ashkenazim, (EG Rashi, & baalei Tosfos)  had a masorah 
     independent of the Bavli
     
     2) This masorah was based upon Minhag Erertz Yisroel
     
     3) The Bavli was the textbook of choice, although not necesary the 
     source of the minhog or masorah.
     
     4)  Tosfos attempts (sometimes stetching sometimes kvethcing) to 
     reconcile the Bavli to the Ashkenaz masorah.  This has led to the type 
     of Pilpulism that became somewhat controversial.
     
     5)  My understanding was that had the Yersuhalmi been better preserved, 
     edited, etc. it might have been the Talmud of choice for Ashkenazim in 
     that it more closely resembles our minhgoimg; however even Ashkeanzim 
     recognize that the Yerushalmi (as we have it) has many limitations
     
     6)  The Ri Migashes assertion that the Bavli is the Main Talmud is 
     therefore limited to Sephardim.  That actually Ashkenazim (based upon a 
     Masorah) might folllow the Yersuhalmi ove rthe Bavlie - althouth not 
     necessarily because the Yersulmi was "better".  Rather, the Ashkenaz 
     Masorah often was in sync with the Yerushalmi as opposed to the Bavli.  
     Without this Masorah, even Ashkenazim would admit that one would 
     generally follow the Bavli over the Yershalmi.
     
     I was in a recent discussion re: learning Kitsur SA.  One of the 
     members of our Chevro stated that Chassidim learn Kitsur a lot.  I 
     questioned him do you mena they PASKEN like the kitsur??  NO they learn 
     it, but often Pasken lemaase against it.
     
     This is a parallel to what my professor was stating.  There was no 
     question taht the Bavli was THE main text for learning even among the 
     Ashkeanzaim.  nevertheless, the Ashkenaz Gedolim had an independent 
     understanding of Halocho - and sometimes attempted to resolve the 
     stiros.
     
     Now turn to the discussion re: Sukko on Shmini Atzeres.  Isn't it true 
     that many people have minhogim that differ from both the Bavli and the 
     SA?  How can they?  Perhaps they also have various independent masoros 
     that didn't make it into either text.  nevertheless, we aattempt to 
     meyasheev that minhog with the way the text reads.
     
     So Rav Yosef Karo would be quite puzzled to see Tosfos learn something 
     totally keneged the Bavli or really twist the Bavli to fit a certain 
     shitto which on the surface might make no sense.  This professor's 
     answer is that the Ashkenzim had a Mesorah of what the din was, and 
     did their best to reduce the conflict with the Bavli.  To R YK, this 
     might not make sense, since  as a Sephardi, he would have probably 
     followed the Ri Migash'es statement that the Bavlie is Talmud Shelonu 
     (or something similar).
     
     This also might explain why the Maharal MiPrag and others found Tosfos 
     methodology so difficult; Tosfos was not really learning Peshat in the 
     Gemoro per se, he was often attempting to econcile it with something 
     he knew to be independtly "true".  
     
     This professor would claim that this was legit insofar as there was a 
     mesorah.  Later pilpul might have had a life of its own; in that id 
     did not have a merosah of what the peshat should be.  Rather it 
     attempted to reconcile texts that might have in fact disagreed with 
     each other.  And they would have based this technique upon Tosfos who 
     also used reconcilliation of seemingly contradicotry texts.  The 
     difference is that Tosfos might have had a hidden agenda.
     
     Remember this is just a theory.  I don't think it can be externally 
     verified.  It does give an approach that explains a lot of 
     difficulties in both methodology and minhogim.
     
     Regards,
     Richard Wolpoe

R. Wolpoe wrote:

>      I don't think of Glatt Kosher as a chumro anymore.  I think of it as 
>      the PSAK of the Beis Yoseph,


Excuse me, but "Glatt" is not the psak of the Beit Yoseph. The standards
for glatt are not the same, and are not acceptable to those of us who do
keep Halak. Apparently "glatt" includes also those lesions that are easily
removed, while Halak Beit Yosef preludes _any_ lesions. There are Sefardi
families here in Baltimore (including my own) who do not buy beef at all
because we can't get halak here without considerable trouble or expense.
So we "make do" with lamb. Personally, I don't mind so much, as I prefer
the flavor of lamb anyway.


>      Only I recongized that it's not practical to have separate 
>      slaughterhouses for Ashkenazim and Sephardim.  

Why would seperate slaughterhouses be necessary? Only seperate labels and
reliable mashgihim.


---Sam

I am not a historian, but the theory is tantalizing, particulary to
myself, as I learn and teach Daf Yomi Yerushalmi!

Nevertheless, an apparent flaw in the theory is that more than anyone else
the Rambam had a proclivity to pasken like the Y-mi. If I recall
correctly, this was a tradition that came from the Beis Medrash of
Rabbeinu Chananel. So, if that is the case, if anything, Sefardim should
have a more Y-mi oriented mesorah.

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

>      A professor of mine attempted to reconcile this a bit.  It takes a bit 
>      of a stretch, and it's been 25 years, so I'll do my best.
>      
>      Essentially, he holds that
>      1) The early Ashkenazim, (EG Rashi, & baalei Tosfos)  had a masorah 
>      independent of the Bavli
>      
>      2) This masorah was based upon Minhag Erertz Yisroel
>      
>      3) The Bavli was the textbook of choice, although not necesary the 
>      source of the minhog or masorah.
>      
>      4)  Tosfos attempts (sometimes stetching sometimes kvethcing) to 
>      reconcile the Bavli to the Ashkenaz masorah.  This has led to the type 
>      of Pilpulism that became somewhat controversial.
>      
>      5)  My understanding was that had the Yersuhalmi been better preserved, 
>      edited, etc. it might have been the Talmud of choice for Ashkenazim in 
>      that it more closely resembles our minhgoimg; however even Ashkeanzim 
>      recognize that the Yerushalmi (as we have it) has many limitations
>      
>      6)  The Ri Migashes assertion that the Bavli is the Main Talmud is 
>      therefore limited to Sephardim.  That actually Ashkenazim (based upon a 
>      Masorah) might folllow the Yersuhalmi ove rthe Bavlie - althouth not 
>      necessarily because the Yersulmi was "better".  Rather, the Ashkenaz 
>      Masorah often was in sync with the Yerushalmi as opposed to the Bavli.  
>      Without this Masorah, even Ashkenazim would admit that one would 
>      generally follow the Bavli over the Yershalmi.
> 

YGB

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

DGLASNER@FTC.GOV writes:

>My point is not that there is no basis in the Torah for the concept of lifnim
>m'sharet ha-din, but that if halachah already encompasses all relevant
>ethical considerations, and there are no standards outside of halachah
>by which to evaluate what is good and just (tov v'yashar) in the eyes of
>the Almighty, then the idea of lifnim m'sharet ha-din is self-contradictory.

For those with access to a library, I would recommend an article on the
subject by R. Aharon Lichtenstein, "Is There an Ethic Independent of
Halakhah?"  The article appears in:
Modern Jewish Ethics, Marivn Fox, ed.
Contemporary Jewish Ethics, Mark Kellner, ed.
Encounter, Chaim Schimmel, Aryeh Carmell, eds.

Of course, the article discusses the category of lifnim mi-shurat
ha-din, naval bi-reshut ha-Torah, etc., as well as various ma'amarei
Hazal.  Interestingly, it notes that the statement of Avraham --
"Ha-Shofet kol ha-aretz lo ya`aseh mishpat?" may be understood as
implying that an external, objective principle exists by which Hashem's
actions may be measured (a point first made by a medieval Christian
thinker).

For the record, R. Lichtenstein's conclusion is equivocal.  He writes
that principles such as lifnim mi-shurat ha-din may be viewed as either
outside Halakhah or part of Halakhah, depending upon how you define the
latter.  He does not seem to feel that it matters a great deal one way
or the other.  Many years later, R J. D. Bleich wrote a brief essay on
the subject taking issue with this conclusion and asserting that these
superrogatory principles are very much part of Halakhah.  Apparently, he
feels it matters a great deal that we define Halakhah as
all-encompassing, which appears consistent with his overall approach.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

RYGB asserted that the Rambam is a big follower of the Yerushalmi.

I have no seforim at work, but just happened to come across this quote a few
minutes ago.

"Maimonides, in his introduction to his magnum opus, The Yad HaHazaka
gives us insight into why the Babylonian Talmud became the
cornerstone of all subsequent halakhic study or discussion.  "all of
Israel is bound to follow all of the [law laid down in] the Babylonian
Talmud and one forces each and every city and each and every state to
follow all the traditions followed by the sages of the Gemara and to
enact their decrees and follow their legislation."

If this is accurate, the Rambam, at least in theory, views the Bavli as the final
word.

In practice, he may often paskin like the yerushalmi. On this I can't comment.

Ari

Rabbi YGB wrote

<<<
 there were many great Acharonim who were very fond of pilpul - yet
the Chasam Sofer negated their "sevara" decisively. Yet they held what
they were engaged in was "Emes - Sevara." Furthermore, he used a
Ma'amar Chazal to do so. This seems to indicate that he held chazal
were making a statement about the reliability of sevara as well, no?
>>>

Indeed he referred to a ma'amar Chazal.  But was he using it as a
"drasha muchrachat" or an "asmachta b'alma"?

<<<
I have always wondere as to the precise location of this quote from the
CS. You say that the Dor Revi'i is quoting the CS in an earlier teshuva.
Do you know precisely where the teshuva is?
>>>

The Dor Revi'i says that it is a teshuva published at the end of the
Chasam Sofer's hidushim to Ketubot.  But I have not myself looked up the
text of the teshuva.  By the way, having mentioned that Shemini Atzeret
was the 74th yahrzeit of the Dor Revi'i, I suppose it is only appropriate to
mention that today is the 159th (I think) yahrzeit of the Chasam Sofer.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

     >>However, as someone else pointed out, one need not cling to the 
     "cold legalistic aspect"; there is a Torah-supported right to 
     apply our own morality as long as it doesn't prevent us from 
     following the halacha: lifnim mishurat hadin.<<
     
     Ein hochi nami.
     
     My essential points are:
     
     1) We are obedient to halacho with regard to behavior.
     2) It's ok to have feelings that might be humanistic and not Halahic (eg 
     having racmonus on 7 Amim or on Agog).
     
     
     One perhaps can argue that we should always do retzon hashem belovovo 
     sholeim and with enthusiasm;  On the other hand it might also be said that 
     as children of Avrohom Ovinu we are by nature rachmoninm, bayshonim and 
     gomlei chasodim, and when the halocho seem sto go agains this, it may be 
     going against our very nature. 
     
     So we can feel humanistically, we behave halochically.  And in that 
     case certain pesukim may set off a certain natural resistance.
     
     Others might both act AND feel halachically only; in that case, there 
     might be less conflict.  However, I don't think that halacho always 
     demands this feeling.  Therefore, I can respect anyone that follows 
     halacho regardless of their internal feelings on a given matter; the 
     bottom line is maase and not machshovo.
     
     Hanistoros laShem Elokeinu v'haniglos lonu ul'voneinu...
     
     I hope this makes some sholom bayis amongst us.
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe
        
     
     
     
      
     
     

Regarding sevara, R. YGB quoted a teshuva of Hatam Sofer citing the
Gemara,
>>>"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?

David Glasner, having read the teshuva inside, responded:
>>  As I suspected (for
>> reasons that will become clear momentarily) it is clear from the t'shuva
>> that the sevara that the Chasma Sofer was refering to was the sevara
>> of pilpul and the Chasam Sofer was, to say the least, not overly found of
pilpulistic reasoning.

To which R. YGB replied:
>Yes, but to turn it around, there were many great Acharonim who were very
>fond of pilpul - yet the Chasam Sofer negated their "sevara" decisively.
>Yet they held what they were engaged in was "Emes - Sevara."

I guess I don't follow this point.  The pilpulists may very well have
believed their pilpul represented  true sevara.  Hatam Sofer apparently
didn't.  Indeed, he seems to be drawing a clear distinction between
sevarot he thinks are worthy and those he thinks are convoluted.  So
here we have a disagreement on what constitutes a good sevara.  But
regarding a sevara that is considered good, it seems that both the Hatam
Sofer and the pilpulists agree that such a sevara is decisive.  That, as
I say, is the way I read it.  But I claim no beki'ut in the teshuvot of
the Hatam Sofer and I am sure that I may have missed something.  Still,
I am having trouble finding where the Hatam Sofer says something
negative applicable to all sevarot.

> Furthermore,
>he used a Ma'amar Chazal to do so. This seems to indicate that he held
>Chazal were making a statement about the reliability of sevara as well,
>no?

I am sorry, but I don't understand this point either.  I thought the
Hatam Sofer was explicitly decrying the pilpulists' tendency to
disregard non-pilpulistic sevarot.  By implication, he thinks the
non-pilpulistic sevarot are true.  Hence, it seems strange to me that he
would apply the ma'amar Hazal to all sevara, as opposed to the
pilpulistic ones.  Besides, Hatam Sofer was no doubt aware of the
prominent place that sevara plays in the halakhic discussions in the
Gemara.   [As many are aware, R. Eliezer Berkovits compiled an entire
sefer citing discussions throughout shas which testify to this point.]
I suppose Hatam Sofer might have viewed this maamar Hazal as somehow
outweighing all of the countervailing evidence regarding Hazal's view of
sevara, but I would not have thought it likely.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark 

     
     <<<
     I would suggest that you review the Maharsha on that gemara before
     making [what appear to be] rash statements.  The Maharsha makes clear
     that the Bat Kol was NOT a valid proof in any event for R. Eliezer. 
     >>>
     
     The beauty of the Halachi system is that oracles and Nevi'im, and Bas 
     kols don't influence the process - it's a kal vachomer that false 
     nevi'im and feelings and "cardiac" Judasim doesn't effect it either!
     
     There are a lot of Jews who who like to twist Halocho based upon what 
     feels right or what is poltically correct and even advance these 
     "enlightened" ideas as Retzon haShem.  Well, thanks to this famous 
     masse in the Gemoro, the halacha remains intact.
     
     Feel good Humanistic concerns and feel good chumro concerns shouldn't 
     obscure Halocho.  Various Masoras, and minhoggim, as well as varying 
     analytical styles, might cause discrepancies.  However, biases, 
     politcal correctness, sentimentalism, should stay out of the picture.  
     Stick to sources, precedents, principles, analysis, poskim, shu"t, 
     lomdus.
     
     An example of what might be called sentimental Am haratzus are those 
     Jews who assume that we avoid leather shoes on YK due to symptathy 
     with the animals - and THEN refrain from leather belts, leather 
     yarmulkas, etc.  I don't know the source of the leather shoes 
     connection with the poor dead beheimo; so far as I know the Halocho 
     applies to footware, period.  
     
     Regards,
     Rich Wolpoe  
     

In a message dated 98-10-15 12:31:08 EDT, you write:

<< For the record, R. Lichtenstein's conclusion is equivocal.  He writes
 that principles such as lifnim mi-shurat ha-din may be viewed as either
 outside Halakhah or part of Halakhah, depending upon how you define the
 latter.  He does not seem to feel that it matters a great deal one way
 or the other.  Many years later, R J. D. Bleich wrote a brief essay on
 the subject taking issue with this conclusion and asserting that these
 superrogatory principles are very much part of Halakhah.  Apparently, he
 feels it matters a great deal that we define Halakhah as
 all-encompassing, which appears consistent with his overall approach.
 
 Kol tuv,
 
 Eli Clark
  >>
Any nafka mina lhalacha or lhashkafa?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

In message , EDTeitz@aol.com writes
>Another question to throw onto the pile:
>
>If one crosses from Shabbos back to Friday, does one make havdala?
>

I think this question, as well as several of Akiva's are not likely to
be practical very often (unlike sheva brochas and taharas hamishpacha
questions), as the dateline is drawn very carefully (in both the secular
international version and the Jewish versions) so as to always fall at
sea.  This means that any time you cross it, you are by definition in
either a ship or an aeroplane, and the consensus appears to be that you
follow the time of the place you set out from until you actually land
somewhere (which you cannot do on shabbas).

Hence, you could not cross from Shabbas back to Friday without being
mechalel shabbas (and so the brachos of havdala would seem rather
inappropriate as it would involve making a brocha on an averah).  Thus
the only circumstance I can think of where it would be mutar would be in
a pikuach nefesh situation, which rather raises other complications.

The one exception to this "in the sea" rule is that it has been
suggested that islands off the coast of Australia should fall on the
other side of the "Jewish" dateline, where this is held to be different
from the International one.  Now, right outside of Melbourne there is a
little island called Phillip Island, that was originally separate from
the mainland, but is now joined by a bridge.  It is not clear to me
whether those who hold that the Jewish Dateline falls in the sea right
off the coast of the mainland of Australia would regard the bridge to
Phillip Island as thereby connecting the island to the mainland and
putting it on the Australian side of the dateline (the view holds that a
mass of land is not divided, which is why such a dateline is sited off
the east coast of Australia in the first place, and not down the middle
of Australia where it would naturally fall if you draw a line the
correct number of degrees from Jerusalem), or because the bridge is not
natural, it is still on the other side of the dateline and therefore you
could walk from one side of the dateline to the other.  However given
the common practice (especially when entertaining guests) of driving
down to Philip Island on a Sunday to watch the penguins come in, I can
tell you that minhag hamakom is that Sunday on Phillip Island is not
Shabbas.

>Eliyahu Teitz
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Ari Z. Zivotofsky wrote:

> RYGB asserted that the Rambam is a big follower of the Yerushalmi.
> 
> In practice, he may often paskin like the yerushalmi. On this I can't
> comment. 

Ayain ba'Mavo la'Yerushalmi Defus Vilna u'be"HaRambam u'Mekhilta d'Rashbi"
mei'eis HaRav MM Kasher.

YGB

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

Re the topic of the ethics of "questionable" verses in the Torah, I recall
a conversation I once had with a Reform "Educator".

Somehow we got into the topic of G-d and how he taught his students about
G-d. He said he has a very hard time teaching his students about G-d,
because he perceives that G-d is not fully just (R"L), as he allows so
much pain and suffering in the world.

I asked him how he deals with this on a personal level.

He said that he thinks G-d is gradually learning, and evolving into a more
just Being or Entity.

I asked him then, rhetorically, how long it took him to figure out that
the death of a young child, etc., was unjust and unethical - five, ten
years, fifteen, if he was slow?

G-d has been at it for at least a few thousand years, and still doesn't
seem to get it, huh?

Not too bright a deity! (R"L!) Why bother with Him at all?

At that point, the conversation essentially stopped dead in its tracks.

Ki lo mach'shevoseichem mach'shevosi.

Re R' Eli's latest:

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Clark, Eli wrote:

> David Glasner, having read the teshuva inside, responded:

I take umbrage at this - do you think I did not see the teshuva inside?
Why don't you take a look at it yourself as well.

The actual subject of the teshuva, btw, is not Pilpul, but Reform - Aharon
Choriner et al.

> I guess I don't follow this point.  The pilpulists may very well have
> believed their pilpul represented true sevara.  Hatam Sofer apparently
> didn't.  Indeed, he seems to be drawing a clear distinction between
> sevarot he thinks are worthy and those he thinks are convoluted.  So
> here we have a disagreement on what constitutes a good sevara.  But

He notes that all sevaros of Acharonim are unreliable:

"Sevaros ha'Acharonim einam chazakos ve'kayamos..."

He notes that a response given without thought is superior to one thought
out. Ayain sham.

> >he used a Ma'amar Chazal to do so. This seems to indicate that he held
> >Chazal were making a statement about the reliability of sevara as well,
> >no?
> 
> I am sorry, but I don't understand this point either.  I thought the
> Hatam Sofer was explicitly decrying the pilpulists' tendency to
> disregard non-pilpulistic sevarot.  By implication, he thinks the
> non-pilpulistic sevarot are true.  Hence, it seems strange to me that he
> would apply the ma'amar Hazal to all sevara, as opposed to the
> pilpulistic ones.  Besides, Hatam Sofer was no doubt aware of the

I invite you to take a look inside, in context.

> prominent place that sevara plays in the halakhic discussions in the
> Gemara.  [As many are aware, R. Eliezer Berkovits compiled an entire
> sefer citing discussions throughout shas which testify to this point.] I

No one deines the important role sevara plays - both in the Gemara and in
Poskim. The probelem arises when the sevara is introduced from the
Outside, not derived - purely and totally - from the Inside.

It was the Outside Sevara - that one's personal interests and agenda
introduces - regardless of whether it was Pilpul or Brisk - that the CS
derided.

YGB

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

>     chodesh but both of its days are counted as part of the new month 
>of Tishre, instead of spanning the end of ellul and the begining of 
Tishre.  This might be the REAL peshat in kdei l'arbeiv.
	How do you explain l'arvev es **hasoton**?

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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]

Chana Luntz wrote:

<<
 I think this question, as well as several of Akiva's are not likely to
 be practical very often (unlike sheva brochas and taharas hamishpacha
 questions), as the dateline is drawn very carefully (in both the secular
 international version and the Jewish versions) so as to always fall at
 sea.  This means that any time you cross it, you are by definition in
 either a ship or an aeroplane, and the consensus appears to be that you
 follow the time of the place you set out from until you actually land
 somewhere (which you cannot do on shabbas).
 
 Hence, you could not cross from Shabbas back to Friday without being
 mechalel shabbas (and so the brachos of havdala would seem rather
 inappropriate as it would involve making a brocha on an averah). 
>>

Actually, if someone started out to sea early in the week  on a long voyage,
they could traverse the date line on Shabbos without being mechalel Shabbos.
And there is no need for pikuach nefesh consideration to do this.  Also, why
should one keep the dateline until arrival at the new location?  If one
crosses the imaginary line, why should the status of the day not change as
well?

Eliyahu

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


[ 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 ]