Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 185

Wednesday, March 10 1999

• Chazal
• Re: derabbanan - response to YGB
• Re: Chazal
• Re: derabbanan - response to YGB
• re: science and history
• 420 as Halachic
• Megillo and Minyan
• Poetry
• re: science and history
• Josephus & aggadah
• [none]
• Shabbos Hagadol
• Re: Denis Rodman- A model for Jewish Youth
• [none]
• Geonim vs. Rishonim
• Re: Geonim vs. Rishonim
• minyon sh'toros
• Ashuri
• The Globe
• Ruach Hakodesh
• Re: Ruach Hakodesh
• Re: Shabbos Ha-gadol
• Chazal and Science

 Nevertheless the authority of such
>> poskim derives directly from their having been broadly accepted and
>> hence is independent of any particular qualities they might have.  2.

>Is that all?

>That, again, sounds Mendelsohnian. What about "sod Hashem l'yerei'av" and
"rishonim k'malachim," etc.?

No it sounds Maimonidean, as in the introduction to the MT where the Rambam
writes that the Gemara is authoritative because it was univerally accepted.

________________________________
Ben Waxman
Technical Writer, Foxcom Ltd.
Telephone:  972 2 589 9822
Fax: 972 2 589 9898

Have you seen Foxcom's Website?
http://www.foxcom.com

>>>Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or
not?Are there, to paraphrase another post, spiritual worlds that Chazal tapped
into with their enactments?<<<

And again I ask: L'mai nafka Minah?

>>>Are we not supposed to attempt to understand? See the Gur Aryeh Reish
Parashas Bechukosai.<<

Where possible, if possible.  Please bring me a ra'aya as to what nafka minah
it makes as to whether Y"T sheni has a 'real' chalos of kedusha or a 'pretend'
chalos?  

As for R' Kook, MaHaraL - they every page cite and explain  ma'amarei Chazal.
What ma'amarei Chazal take on new meaning in light of your assertion that
derabbanan's affect real kedusha?  What kashe does forces you to say such a
chiddush?  Is it muchrach from gemaras, or just personal belief and
speculation?  To me a chiddush in a sugya in Bava Kamma and a chiddush in
machshava both have standards of proof - no?  

Yes, the R' Moshe Soloveitchik story is apropros!  

-CB

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, Ben Waxman wrote:

> No it sounds Maimonidean, as in the introduction to the MT where the
> Rambam writes that the Gemara is authoritative because it was univerally
> accepted. 
> 

Again, I ask: Is that all?

YGB

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

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> And again I ask: L'mai nafka Minah?
>

For Avodas Hashem. Sorry, I don't understand your perspective: Is the
enhanced experience of a Yom Tov less of a nafka mina than the
ramifications of whether mego is koach ha'ta'ana or ne'emanus?
 
> Where possible, if possible.  Please bring me a ra'aya as to what nafka
> minah it makes as to whether Y"T sheni has a 'real' chalos of kedusha or
> a 'pretend' chalos? 
> 

I don;t like pretend. Like any red-blooded American, I can't stand
authority wielded arbitrarily. If I understood YT as pretend, I would be
completely behind the Reform efforts to abolish it (r"l).

> As for R' Kook, MaHaraL - they every page cite and explain ma'amarei
> Chazal.  What ma'amarei Chazal take on new meaning in light of your
> assertion that derabbanan's affect real kedusha?  What kashe does forces
> you to say such a chiddush?  Is it muchrach from gemaras, or just
> personal belief and speculation?  To me a chiddush in a sugya in Bava
> Kamma and a chiddush in machshava both have standards of proof - no? 
> 

The bracha: AKB"V. See also the Or Gedalyahu on Chanuka, in the section on
"L'shana Acheres."

YGB

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

Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:

<<<
> If I undertand you correctly, you are asking me why I obey (with the
> appropriate blessing) purely Rabbinic enactments that are not based on a
> derivation from a Biblical verse.  But the obligation to obey Rabbinic
> enactments is itself derived from a Biblical verse, "al pi ha-Torah
> asher yorucha" or something else in a similar vein.  Are you suggesting

Not asking that!I am asking, rather, is that all?

Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or not?

Are there, to paraphrase another post, spiritual worlds that Chazal tapped
into with their enactments? I obviously think there are - do you?
>>>

The problem with a term like "ruach ha-kodesg" is that it does imply
infalliablity.  For example, there are many (including certifiable gedolim) who
believed that Rashi's commentary was written with ruach ha-kodesh and
they therefore went to, what I would consider, implausible extremes to defend
Rashi against evrey single criticism of the Ba'alei Tosafot and the Ramban,
for example.  (As an aside I cannot resist mentioning that my daughter's
fourth grade Chumash teacher told her class that Rashi had ruach ha-kodesh
so that everything in Rashi is true.  When Shifra repeated this to me, I told
her that she was very lucky to have a teacher who knows more than the
Ramban did.)  Now at some level, I have no problem agreeing that Rashi
was blessed with ruach ha-kodesh in writing his commentaries, but as I once
before suggested, I have difficulty distinguishing between ruach ha-kodesh
on that level and the level on which Beethoven was, in my humble opinion,
gifted with ruach ha-kodesh when he wrote his ninth symphony and his late
quartets and the other sublime masterpieces of his later life when he was
virtually stone deaf.  And if somebody wanted to suggest that Bach and
Mozart were also divinely inspired, I for one would not argue to the contrary. 
So I readily acknowledge that Rashi and Chazal et al. were divinely inspired,
but I do not therefore feel bound to accept that they were thereby shielded
from error.  Beyond that, I don't see the point in delving further into the
inner workings of my psyche.  Besides, if we did delve further, one or more
esteemed members of the list might get really upset with me (us?)

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Clarification:  I meant to say, at what point was it "fixed" that 420 was THE 
used to determine the minyan Brias Olom. 

IOW, when would it still be legitimate to debate that cheshbon.

EG, R. Yehoshua debated Rabban Gamliel's cheshbon legabei YK. YK. 
QL: At what point was he forced to concede?  
A: My guess is at the point he was summoned to Sanhedrin to appear bemaklo etc.

Given that we are "stuck" with 420; when was that point FIXED?

Most of my recent posts have a common theme; i.e. when does halocho, minhag, 
cheshbon, become kavua, and when is it still subject to revision?

Rich Wolpoe

  

R. Areyh Frimer:
>>The consensus of leading aharonim is that ten women alone indeed do
constitute a proper minyan for both the reading of the Megillah (in a
regular year and even on Purim Meshulash) and reciting of the ha-rav et
riveinu benediction. ..<<

Do any of the sources discuss being mitzteref women and men legabie Megillo? 

Rich Wolpoe

>> have no doubts that the 120 zekainim u'nevi'im who composed our
tefillos had better things on their mind than good poetic writing,<<

Interesting.  Be'pashtus isn't our MAIN source for Davening in Tanach, i.e sefer
Tehillim (or Tehillos if you prefer), replete with poetry?

It would seem that "Avoda she'bleiv" involves emotions, and that music and 
poetry are prime media for emotions.

Wasn't there a recent article decrying the intellectualization of davening at 
the expense of feeling?

Rich Wolpoe 

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999, David Glasner wrote:

> Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or
> not? 
> 
> Are there, to paraphrase another post, spiritual worlds that Chazal
> tapped into with their enactments? I obviously think there are - do you? 
> >>>
> 
> The problem with a term like "ruach ha-kodesg" is that it does imply
> infalliablity.  For example, there are many (including certifiable
> gedolim) who believed that Rashi's commentary was written with ruach
> ha-kodesh and they therefore went to, what I would consider, implausible
> extremes to defend Rashi against evrey single criticism of the Ba'alei
> Tosafot and the Ramban, for example.  (As an aside I cannot resist

That may be, but since we are sophisticated enough to know that is not
true, we can divorce the discussion of infallibility from that of the
ruach hakodesh of Chazal, no? In fact, even nevi'im (other than Moshe
Rabbeinu) are fallible, as evidenced by Shaul's perception that Shmuel
erred in his nevu'ah vis-a-vis Amalek.

> mentioning that my daughter's fourth grade Chumash teacher told her
> class that Rashi had ruach ha-kodesh so that everything in Rashi is
> true.  When Shifra repeated this to me, I told her that she was very
> lucky to have a teacher who knows more than the Ramban did.)  Now at
> some level, I have no problem agreeing that Rashi was blessed with ruach
> ha-kodesh in writing his commentaries, but as I once before suggested, I
> have difficulty distinguishing between ruach ha-kodesh on that level and
> the level on which Beethoven was, in my humble opinion, gifted with
> ruach ha-kodesh when he wrote his ninth symphony and his late quartets
> and the other sublime masterpieces of his later life when he was
> virtually stone deaf.  And if somebody wanted to suggest that Bach and
> Mozart were also divinely inspired, I for one would not argue to the
> contrary. So I readily acknowledge that Rashi and Chazal et al. were

OK, so I understand that you equate the "divine inspiration" of Chazal
with that of Beethoven.

Without descending into quagmires of accusation and counter accusation, do
you understand how many of us find that equation impossible, and why we
regard that very diminishing of Chazal? (I am intenionally understating
here, because I don't want anyone to think we are c"v having anything
other than a respectful excahnge of views, highlighting the differences
between our schools of thought). 

> divinely inspired, but I do not therefore feel bound to accept that they
> were thereby shielded from error.  Beyond that, I don't see the point in
> delving further into the inner workings of my psyche.  Besides, if we
> did delve further, one or more esteemed members of the list might get
> really upset with me (us?) 
> 

True, true. But let him get a little more upset for a tad :-).

Your and my personal views would not be of consequence were I not
convinced that we are not yechidim, but rather representatives of
differing schools of thought with many more adherents that we
tips-of-the-icebergs. That is why I find this exercise useful - and
engaging.

YGB

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

   As a personal view, I trust chazal and not Josephus as to whether individuals
were tzaddikim or rashiim as that is a moral/halachic issue.
However, when it comes to the structure of the Temple it seems that Josephus
is more reliable - or to be more exact the description in the Mishna
does not pertain to complete physical description of the temple
of Herod even though that would be the obvious interpretation. We thus, need
to reinterpret the mishnaot as referring to something else.

Similarly, Josephus lists more Persian kings than do Chazal and also seems
to have Purim later than chazal.

Finally, I have a major problem with interpreting aggadot. Almost everyone
would agree that the sties of Rabbah bar bar chana are not to be taken
literally. However, beyond that there seems to be an attitude that everything
is literal except if it can't be defended.
I understood that much of the maharl was to interpret aggadot spiritually
not literally.  Jerusalem is the highest place spiritually not
physically. In fact contrary to recent daf yomi gemaras (at least rashi)
har habayot is not the highest place in the immediate vicinity. Just go visit
the Haas promenade.

Are the recent daf yomi aggadot about the "shesiya rock" meant to be literal?
Similarly the aggadot about the size of the world etc?

I am still in the dark when an aggadah is literal and when not?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel:wq

>> mentioned that there are many brilliant people, R. Aaron Soloveichik, 
>> among them who believe that Chazal were always right even in matters of 
>> science and it is we, who are mistaken in our true understanding of the 

I don't believe that is his theoy. In many cases he claims that we misunderstand chazal.

I remember he makes fun of those who take literally the gemara that the
hot springs are hot because they pass near Gehinom. Instead he interprets
gehinom not as hell but hot volcanic material. Thus, he does not dismiss
modern science but instead reinterprets the aggadah.


Eli Turkel

     A few years ago my father postulated the possibility that we call it
Shabbos hagadol in order to be hosei milibam of those who were not mikabel
Torah Shbal Peh who said that memachoras hashabbos (by the omer) means
Saturday night.  The chachmim were showing that Yom Tov can be called
Shabbos as opposed to the Shabbos Hagadol that comes every week.

     Also heard a pshat that it is because  people treat it with less
respect than a regular Shabbos (chamets concerns) so its called Shabbos
Hagadol (like Kidush Rabah).

Moshe Luchins

In v2n183, Samuel A Drebin <sadbkd@juno.com> writes:
: In case you missed it, this past week's Parsha tells us that Jewish boys
: wore earrings (Porku nizmei ha-zohov Asher bi-oznei Nisheichem BNEICHEM
: Uvinoseichem...), and men wore jewelry! 

I used to enjoy boggling people's minds by using a similar pasuk to show
that since men in those days wore noserings, certainly Moshe Rabbeinu,
raised in Par'o's home, wore one. No? Far cry from the spudik he's given in
the coloring book my son's school uses for his weekly "parshah sheet".

My father countered with a quote from the Chafeitz Chaim. No, not all Jewish
men wore noserings -- only those who participated in the eigel! The rest
weren't assimilated enough to adopt Egyptian style.

-mi


-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  9-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 302:14-20
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 47a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari I 1-4

>> Although there are sources which seem to say that chazal viewed the world
>> as being flat, it's also interesting to note that there is a Mishna in
>> Avodah Zara (I think the beg of the third perek) which describes an idol of
>> a man holding a ball, the gemara
>> describes this as a person who says he has the world in his hand(or he's
>> under the world) see tos
>> there who explicitly says that the world is round,

I believe this is really a Yerushalmi. At best it shows that there were
disagreements among chazal about the world being flat/round/sphere.
If tosaphot says this explicitly then they preceed Copernicus
within the middle ages by several hundred years (some ancient Greeks knew
the earth was a globe).

Somehow there is a feeling spread in some places that every aggadah
is to be believed. What ever happened to machlokes. Just as there are disagreements
in halachah so there are disagreements in aggadah and science and in history.

The Geamara records a disagreement whether the alphabet that we have today
(Ashuri) is the same one as Moshe received. Presumably this is a
historical disagreement. Again archaelogy has uncovered thousands of documents
written in the ancient Hebrew script but never an ancient document written
in the ashuri script (of course not finding something is always a weaker
argument). However, since we do find such a shitta in the gemara can we say
that this opinion corresponds "more closely" to historical "evidence"?

Rambam paskens like the opinion that the ashuri script is the original script.
Does a psak of Rambam carry any historical weight even within hashkafa?
Obviously Rambam paskened according to some general rules of psak and not
based on his own research.

kol tuv,
eli Turkel

Ben Waxman <bwaxman@foxcom.com>>>
How much material do we have from the Geonim?  Answer - very little.  Maybe 
the small quantity of material is the reason<<

I was told that Rishonim did not hesitate to argue on Geonim.  Sparcity of 
material didn't seem to be material. <pun>

The question remains: How is it that Rishonim felt free to "override" G'eonim 
while Acharonim do no feel free to override Rishonim?  (IOW it's not simply 
generational). 

Rich wolpoe

I had taken it for granted that what separates to eras WRT halachic authority
is that Adas Yisrael reached consensus on some seifer as being largely
authoritative. See v1n52 (http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol01/v01n052.html#15)
for more explanation as to why I think it's so.

Therefore, tannaim argued with zugos, and rishonim with geonim, as those periods
were separate eras historically, but did not have such a book to distinguish
them in terms of halachic authority.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  9-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 302:14-20
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 47a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari I 1-4

Micha wrote:
<In what way does the duration of bayis sheini affect halachah? Two
possibilities came to mind, but I don't think either actually do.

1- Dating sh'taros. However, we add "liminyan she'anu monim kan", which is
true whether or not the count is correct. As long as the year is thought of
as 5759.>

Nah. The minyon sh'toros only kicks off after alexander. somewhere around
-330 (i may be off a year or two).  the 165 year confusion is entirely
contained within the preceding persian period, so the minyon sh'toros would
be unaffected, (at least since nobody has ever suggested e.g that we date
the destruction of bayis rishon to 258 BMS, or even 97 BMS =Before Minyon
Sh').   

It's the Yerushalmi that says "ayin v'tes shebaluchos", and the Bavli that
says it was "mem visamech b'neis hayu omdim". Which letters required a
miracle in the luchos depends on which letters include a closed shape. In
Canaanite script, numerous letters qualify, including ayin and tes. Either
the Yerushalmi was referring to Canaanite script and didn't provide a complete
list of letters, or it was referring to some other variant.

Either way, presumably the Bavli would say that Ashuri was reserved for kisvei
kodesh, being the pre-Migdal Bavel script. As kisvei kodesh are written on
k'laf, none would have survived since before Galus Bavel.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  9-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 302:14-20
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 47a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari I 1-4

I hoped I already showed to people's satisfaction that the Jewish acceptance
of the Ptolmeic universe was pretty universal by a generation or two after
Ptolmey. P describes the universe as a set of concentric spinning spheres
nested around a spherical earth. Copernicus' heliocentric model was not the
start of the idea of the globe.

So, it should come as no surprise that the Greeks already showed Atlas holding
a sphere, or that the Yerushalmi is unsurprised that they believed the world
was round.

It wasn't until the Middle Ages that the common man was no longer educated
enough to realize what shape earth would yeild a horizon.

What's really fascinating to me is Rashi's description of R' Gamliel's
surveyor's telescope. Even if Rashi read too much into the gemara's
description, he himself well predated Lippershey's idea to combine multiple
lenses to make a telescope. Rashi doesn't mention lenses, but his description
of focussing is so correct, it's hard to picture anything but a telescope. My
guess is Rashi was describing something that used two pinholes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287      MMG"H for  9-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayakhel-Pekudei
micha@aishdas.org                                     A"H O"Ch 302:14-20
http://www.aishdas.org                                Eruvin 47a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.     Kuzari I 1-4

RYBG: >>
Is there an intuitive Ruach HaKodesh to Chazallic pronouncements - or not?<<

Yes there is  .
Question: did Hillel have MORE Ruach haKodesh than Shamai?  Rovo more than 
Abaye? who had more Rav or Shmuel?  Shach or Taz?

If Eilu v'eilu applies across the board (it might not) it would make sense they 
ALL have Ruach haKodesh, but are not all saying kehalocho.

Rich Wolpoe

On Tue, 9 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Question: did Hillel have MORE Ruach haKodesh than Shamai?  Rovo more
> than Abaye? who had more Rav or Shmuel?  Shach or Taz? 
> 

Don't know, of course, but both the Rambam and Ramchall have very detailed
gradations of levels in ruach hakodesh which may interest you. See also
the famous Ramban on BB12 "Chacham adif me'Navi".

> If Eilu v'eilu applies across the board (it might not) it would make
> sense they ALL have Ruach haKodesh, but are not all saying kehalocho. 
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 
> 
> 

YGB

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

In Shulchan Oruch Ha'Rav the reason given for the name "Shabbos Hagodol",
is that the Bechoray Umos Ha'Olam came and asked about the lambs etc. 
When they were told that the Bechorim would be killed as well, they went
to Paroh and told him to let the jewish people go. When he refussed they
revolted and killed many of the Mitzri leaders/fathers. Hence Le'makai
Mitzrayim Biv'chorayhem.  Based on Shabbos Peh-Zayin: Tos- Vioso Hayom
(Shemos Rabah).
___________________________________________________________________
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

>>Chazal *did* follow the opinions of gentile scientists of their time
(see the gemara in Pesachim 94b re: R. Yehuda Hanassi; the gemara in Shabbat
85a re: agriculture; the Yerushalmi in Shviit 9:2 on animal behavior).
Josh<<

And Chazal witnessed executions and investigated the anatomy of gentile cadavrs,
etc. in order to expand their knowledge.   

In fact, are there any sources for making any convnetional scientific 
disciplinea off-limits to investigation?

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]