Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 190

Tuesday, March 16 1999

• Halachic Hidden Agenda
• Re: More on 420 and Purim, etc.
• Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Re: Avodah V2 #188
• Re: Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Rav Lichtenstein's view of Edah (fwd)
• Re: learning machshava
• Chazal
• Re: Getting a godole
• Re: Chazal
• Re: Ruach hakodesh
• Re: Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Re: More on 420 and Purim, etc.
• Re: Bais Din HaGadol
• pi
• Re: Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Re: Ruach hakodesh
• Re: Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• Re: Pi
• Disagreeing with Earlier Doros

RYGB: >>
"[The GR"A] added that one must be very careful with all the words of
Chazall, even if the reason they gave no longer applies, for they only
revealed one reason, and concealed many hidden reasons whose secrets are
rooted in Kabbala, of them those that are only revealed to tzenu'in and
chachamim."
(Aliyos Eliyahu p. 40, he'ara 12 and Pe'as HaShulchan 25:32)<<

Presuming  hocho bemai askini to be post Sanhedrin...

Q: until which generation was this valid?
A) Chasimas haTalmud 
B) Geonim
C) Rishonim?
D) Acharonim?
E) Still valid today

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 3/15/99 9:10:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< An aricelt in the NJ jewish Standard recently questioned the historicity of
the 
 Megillo based upon the lack of sources for Ahcashveirosh.  Mitchell First 
 Responded with a letter pointed out that Ahcashveirsosh was Xrexes and gave
the 
 etymology.
 
 Several questions coalesced in my mind.  Some my serve to gie us a bit of 
 insight...
  >>

For more discussion of these issues, there was a very good article in
Tradition a few years back by Manfred Lehmann.

Jordan Hirsch

REDT writes:
>>But, RYGB you miss the point.  Chazal did not tell us that information.
>>Rishonim did.  BIG difference. No?

RYGB writes back:

>No, REDT! Perhaps vis-a-vis themselves it made a difference whether a
>Rishon or an Amora said something - but, from our perspective they are
>all seraphim, ofanim v'chayos ha'kodesh asher kol divreihem yesodam
>b'harerei kodesh!

>(To put it colloquially: They didn't make stuff up!)

No.  This argument is getting totally out of hand.  Whether we are
speaking about Halakha or haskafa, there is an absolute and fundamental
distinction between Hazal and Rishonim that cannot and should not be
blurred.  I am amazed to hear this distinction explicitly rejected.  And
-- in a discussion about the uniqueness of Hazal in all places!  (Do we
view the perushim on mikra of Rishonim as equal in authority to the
derashot of Hazal?  Do we equate the takkanot of one with the takkanot
of the other?  Do we consider the statements on theology of Rishonim as
binding as those of Hazal?)

I feel compelled to point out as well that neither Maharsha nor Maharal
qualify as Rishonim.

Back to the original point.  No matter how much authority we ascribe to
Rishonim, R Teitz is correct that the silence of Hazal on this point is
far more important than the words of certain Rishonim.  Hazal did not
tell us how to interpret their words -- and did not claim authority by
dint of ru'ah ha-kodesh.  This means that they deliberately chose not to
demand obedience on the basis of their higher spiritual level, but
expected their words to derive authority from some other source
(presumably the halakhic principles already discussed).

Moreover, no matter how unimpeachable a source we consider Ritva or
Rashba to be  -- and I still can't believe RYGB thinks they are on the
same level as Hazal (even from our perspective) -- their testimony about
Hazal cannot be as compelling as Hazal's own words.  The Rishonim can
only be relying on a mesorah and we do not view mesorah as equivalent to
eyewitness testimony.  (If we did, the Kuzari's famous argument for the
truth of Mattan Torah would evaporate!  After all, no one would say that
Moshe Rabbenu's testimony would hallillah be suspect in the slightest.
Yet, R. Yehudah Halevi deems it significant that we do not rely merely
on the experience of Moshe, but that of all of Benei Yisrael.
Similarly, we do not have testimony from the time of Hazal on these
issues, only from later sources.  How can these be logically compared?)

The issue is not whether Rishonim "made things up."  The issue is
whether we equate a later perush of Hazal with the statements of Hazal
themselves.  I believe the answer is clearly no.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> Subject: intent of matza
> > 
> >  Do you believe there is no benifit
> > in trying to understand and think about the mitzvos besides for the intent
> > to fulfill them. Are we not supposed to think about why we eat matzah on
> > pesach
> 
> Actually this is the wrong example. According to many, the statement of
> Ramban Gamliel means that one is not yotzei the mitzva of matza
> (at least on some level) without knowing the intent of the mitzva.
> Rav Soloveitchik discusses the Rambam and Ramban at great length on
> this halacha.
How did you know I was referring to R. Gamiel to say I gave a wrong
example--I don't remember writing anything about Raban Gamliel, Do you
always respond by assuming what the author meant even though he never said
it??? In fact I was referring to the fact that Chazal points out that
Avraham and lot had Matzah even before Yetzias Mitzraim, or the fact that
Matzah and chometz are made of the same ingrediants with the only
difference being time---as well as other ideas expressed in chazal or by
the ballei machshava which could lead to a better understanding of teh
mitzva. My point is that if chazal and gedolim talk about elements of teh
mitzvah it stands to reason that we should know more about them, this by
the way is not a contradiction to the fact that we must know how to
properly fulfill the mitzvos. I never intended that the reasons behind the
mitzva should take precedence over the proper fullfillment, just that
there is a beneift in undersatnding more about the mitzvos as opposed to
just eating matza because we are commanded to and not thinking past that. 
The matza example was jsut because I'm currently learning about matza as
pesach is approaching, I'd imagine that if I wrote this post a couple of
months ago I might have used a diferent example
Elie Ginsparg 

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> RYGB writes back:
> 
> >No, REDT! Perhaps vis-a-vis themselves it made a difference whether a
> >Rishon or an Amora said something - but, from our perspective they are
> >all seraphim, ofanim v'chayos ha'kodesh asher kol divreihem yesodam
> >b'harerei kodesh!
> 
> >(To put it colloquially: They didn't make stuff up!)
> 
> No.  This argument is getting totally out of hand.  Whether we are
> speaking about Halakha or haskafa, there is an absolute and fundamental
> distinction between Hazal and Rishonim that cannot and should not be
> blurred.  I am amazed to hear this distinction explicitly rejected.  And

Let us not get emotional here. Who rejected this distinction. OK, you
don't like the word "Perhaps" - a figure of speech. Of course there was a
difference, and there remains an objective difference. For the GR"A there
still was a difference, as evinced in his guidelines to R' Chaim
Volozhiner about the extent to which one can argue on Rishonim. For the
Chasam Sofer, already (sof Chiddushe Kesuvos) there was not: The Rishonim
are now unassailable.

While R' Chaim Brisker wrote no Hashkafic works, this is evident from his
work and those of his contemporaries: The analysis of shittos rishonim is
now - universally and unapologetically - no less TT than Limud HaGemara.
R' Yisroel in the Or Yisroel put it succintly: For us, the Gemara is the
TSBK and the Rishonim TSBAP. 

> -- in a discussion about the uniqueness of Hazal in all places!  (Do we
> view the perushim on mikra of Rishonim as equal in authority to the

We do not only because the Rishonim themselves - such as the Ramban in
Sefer Ha'Viku'ach (see R' chavel there for the other MM's) - told us that
such areas do not have the binding authority of Halacha.

> derashot of Hazal?  Do we equate the takkanot of one with the takkanot
> of the other?  Do we consider the statements on theology of Rishonim as
> binding as those of Hazal?)
> 

Of course we do. For example:

1. We do not eat kitniyos.
2. We will not force a get where the woman claims "ma'us alai" without
great raglayim la'davar. (RT)
3. We will not marry more than one woman nor be megaresh ba'al korcha.
(RGMH)
4. We do not institue takkanos of afke'inhu. (Rashba)

> I feel compelled to point out as well that neither Maharsha nor Maharal
> qualify as Rishonim.
>

A minor quibble. If you'd like I'll concede it, but vis-a-vis perushei
aggadata, these are primary sources - certainly vis-a-vis us.
 
> Back to the original point.  No matter how much authority we ascribe to
> Rishonim, R Teitz is correct that the silence of Hazal on this point is
> far more important than the words of certain Rishonim.  Hazal did not

I think this is surely a shegags me'pi ha'shalit. I have cried BB 12 over
and over again, but have yet to see anyone cogently refute the reference.
reminds me of the utter lack of response to my cries of Yechezkel 29-32 in
the 420 years debate.

> tell us how to interpret their words -- and did not claim authority by
> dint of ru'ah ha-kodesh.  This means that they deliberately chose not to
> demand obedience on the basis of their higher spiritual level, but
> expected their words to derive authority from some other source
> (presumably the halakhic principles already discussed).
> 

I have agreed with those principles and have used the divine element to
explain why on earth we just don't discard d'rabbanan's today. For those
who think that is not feasible: See Igros Moshe 2:100 and 3:55.

> Moreover, no matter how unimpeachable a source we consider Ritva or
> Rashba to be -- and I still can't believe RYGB thinks they are on the
> same level as Hazal (even from our perspective) -- their testimony about
> Hazal cannot be as compelling as Hazal's own words.  The Rishonim can
> only be relying on a mesorah and we do not view mesorah as equivalent to
> eyewitness testimony.  (If we did, the Kuzari's famous argument for the
> truth of Mattan Torah would evaporate!  After all, no one would say that
> Moshe Rabbenu's testimony would hallillah be suspect in the slightest. 

This, of course, must also be ascribed to shegaga. Two witnesses are not
equivalent to a completer Dor HaMidbar, but we kill on their basis. Rebbe
was mattir Beis She'an on the eidus of one talmid chochom. There are
gradations of ne'amanus. We know it is said on the Rach "she'kol devarav
divrei kabbala" (i.e., mesorah).

> Yet, R. Yehudah Halevi deems it significant that we do not rely merely
> on the experience of Moshe, but that of all of Benei Yisrael. 
> Similarly, we do not have testimony from the time of Hazal on these
> issues, only from later sources.  How can these be logically compared?) 
> 
> The issue is not whether Rishonim "made things up."  The issue is
> whether we equate a later perush of Hazal with the statements of Hazal
> themselves.  I believe the answer is clearly no.
> 

As the Chazon Ish says:

(BTW, There may be those (c"v not on this list!) who will say (afra
l'pumyhu): "Eh, the Chazon Ish - a right winger. Bechhofer - a charedi
[albeit, according to RMF, a reasonable one]. This is sheer nonsense, of
course. The CI's perspectives on psak are as normative as they come - and
I chaleenge [double dare!] anyone to come up with a contrary perspective
form any Gadol b'Torah from any camp. As to my views on Chazal and
Rishonim - they come from the chinuch I received - and am proud of - in
the halls of HANC, Chorev, Netiv Meir and Sha'alvim, no less than the
chinuch I recieved in Chofetz Chaim, Ner Yisroel and two Mirs.)

"And the words of the Rishonim z"l even in Shikul HaDa'as are totally
Torah and based on their words we must act... And all the words of the
Rishonim are ne'emanim vis-a-vis us as if given at Sinai, and while we
are required to consider them and analyze them, that is not for ikkar
ha'din, but to understand their holly words..."

(OC 64. There's more, also about their Ruach HaKodesh, ach dai bazeh)

YGB

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

From a listmember who I think sent this accidentally to me only, but just
in case I erased his identification. I would appreciate someone forwarding
me the actual letter.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 18:53:27 EST
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Rav Lichtenstein's view of Edah

I refer and reccomend all readers of the list to Rav Lichtenstein's letter to
the editor in this past week's Forward . The article is an intellectual  tour
de force and rejection of the notion that the Rav Z'l would have lent his name
to the cause of Edah.I have read the letter a number of times and I'm still
numbed by the power and passion in this letter. I think that based upon the
articles by Rav Twerski, Rav Meiselman and Rav Lichtenstein that Edah may have
to think twice before claiming the legacy of the Rav z'L.

>>>Can you please explain your position. Do you believe there is no benifit
in trying to understand and think about the mitzvos besides for the intent
to fulfill them. Are we not supposed to think about why we eat matzah on
pesach, why muktzah takes effect bein hashamashos and not some other time.
Is it not part of our avodas Hashem<<<

Of course you are - mefurash in Rambam Temurah 4:13.  The point of learning
machshava is so WE can perfom mitzvot better (as you wrote), not, however, to
understand what goes on in shamayim which is beyond our control.  To give an
example: it matters little to my avodah whether angels have bechira.  It
matters much to appreciate the symbolism and meaning of eating matzah.  Or in
other words: the essence of mitzvot are incomprehensible gezeirot (Berachos
33); what we contemplate is their meaning to us, but nothing in the absolute
sense.  See also R' Soloveitchik's Halachic Mind esp. part IV.

-Chaim

>>>I am not questioning that acceptance is the basis of Chazal's authority
over us. The questionis why we should feel compelled to continue this
acceptance.<<<

Ain B"D yachol l'vatel divrei B"D chaveiro.  Mishna in Eidiyos.

>>>Anyway, let's talk tachlis (no particular order):"And it is known that all
the words of Chazal althought they possess great secrets<<<

I wrote already that Chazal were privy to secrets of nistar, etc. (I differ I
think with D'  Glasner on that).  

It is quite another matter to assert a causal relationship and say that this
mystical knowledge is the source of Chazal's continued acceptance.  None of
the mekoros bear out that leap of reasoning, do they???

The halachic process has proceeded independent of mystical considerations -
The fact that the Ra'avad in Lulav writes that his bais medrash had ruach
hakodesh didn't stop the Rambam and other Rishonim from disagreeing - see
Rosh in Sanhedrin, Kesef Mishne in Mamrim, etc. which I quoted last time.  In
short, Chazal, Rishonim, geonim etc. did not really seem all that concerned
with secrets of the worlds beyond when they paskened halachos - the biggest
ra;'aya is they never mention it, see my previous postings.

(With apologies for repitition) - Chaim

Dr. Saul Stokar wrote:
 I recall reading an Israeli hagiography
> of Rav Shach a few years ago in which the author (whose name I can't
> recall) tells of how a young yeshiva boy asked R. Shach a question
> during his weekly shi'ur clalli in the Ponovich yeshiva that caused him
> (R. Shach) to stop, think and then announce something like "The boy is
> correct; the rest of the shi'ur is cancelled because it is not correct".
> (As I recall, this is alleged to have occured more than once over the
> years. In addition, there were cases where the questioner was quite a
> "junior" member of the yeshiva.) I have attended and participated in a
> large number of physics conferences and colloquia and I seen some quite
> devastating criticism presented to the lecturer, but I have never seen
> this kind of response, which apparently stems from a combination of a
> truly sincere thirst for the truth coupled with the utmost humility. I
> certainly hope the story is actually true, since it has made a great
> impression on me and I recall it ever since.
> 
> Saul Stokar

I heard this exact same story in the name of the Rav.

HM

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> Ain B"D yachol l'vatel divrei B"D chaveiro.  Mishna in Eidiyos. 
> 

Again. How does this apply to Babylonian Amoraim?

> It is quite another matter to assert a causal relationship and say that
> this mystical knowledge is the source of Chazal's continued acceptance. 
> None of the mekoros bear out that leap of reasoning, do they??? 
> 

They certainly do! "Im Rishonim k'*Malachim* etc." is the rationale for
not taking issue with previous generations. 

To quote the Chazon Ish (free translation):

"Hashem's hashgocho in every generation has planted individuals in them
respectively to instruct the Jewish people, and when they deeply examine
the halacha they are at that time like malachim, and a divine spirit rests
upon them, and, therefore, on their basis severe halachos in Ishus,
Shabbos, etc. are fixed..." (Igros 1:33)

Remember that R' Chaim Brisker would send sheilos to R' Yitzchok Elchonon
and ask for psokim without the rationales? Remember why? Curious how you
explain that other than al pi the CI's yesod?!

> (With apologies for repitition) - Chaim
> 

Ditto.

YGB

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

My apologies for quoting from posts written over a week ago.  I did not have
time to read the digests and am now first getting through them.

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

This depends on how one defines ruach hakodesh.  Rambam most clearly rejects
this notion, stating that ruach hakodesh is simply an inspiration, reaching a
conclusion that one would not normally have thought to come to.  (see his
definition in Moreh).

How do you define ruach hakodesh?  Once we all agree on terms I think many
differences will fall.

EDT

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Back to the original point.  No matter how much authority we ascribe to
> Rishonim, R Teitz is correct that the silence of Hazal on this point is
> far more important than the words of certain Rishonim.

Does this mean that you never learn aggadata? since Chazal wrote in a
cryptic fashion and didn't reveal what is liteeral and what isn't , let
alone the real interpretaion--you can never know what chazal meant. I can
learn chazal and get their message through the interpretation of gedolim
who A. either had a mesorah of what the chazal meant or B. using their
brilliance figured out a plausable explanation for the aggadatta. we can
quibble whether or not the explanation takes on the din of chazal or is
only as strong as the one giving it but I can feel comfotable that this is
what chazal meant as interpreted by gedolim. Your model doesn't allow that
because ultimately chazal's silence is more important than any
interpretation---leaving the realm of aggadata useless--is this really
what you suggest?
Elie Ginsparg

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> An aricelt in the NJ jewish Standard recently questioned the historicity of the 
> Megillo based upon the lack of sources for Ahcashveirosh.  Mitchell First 
> Responded with a letter pointed out that Ahcashveirsosh was Xrexes and gave the 
> etymology.
> 
This summs up part of the problem--how do you question the historoicity of
the megilla because other sorces don't use Ach--, the megilla does--that
is a historic source. It's a document claimed (and supported through an
unbroken tradition)to be written at that time. It describes an event which
happened throughout the knigdom and involved the king and queen. A whole
nation accepted it as true. The would lead me to believe that the megilla
is a legitimate historical document (besides the fact that it is a work
of ruach hakodesh) you can't question it because it doesn't conform to
someone else, question the someone else. In fact I believe the answer is
correct ie. xerxes=achsveirosh, my point is the assumption that the
megilla is wrong because of others and not vice versa, just like the
assumption that seder olam is wrong not herodotus etc. 
Elie Ginsparg

<<
A) How can BD Hagodol ever make an "error"? IOW, isn't their psak ipso facto 
authoritative?
>>

Is there not a g'mara about the entrance exam to BD haGadol, that one must
give many proofs that sh'ratzim are tahor.  And yet, such a conclusion is
wrong.  The application of the 13 middos still had to fit within the framework
of halacha.  Simply plugging words into equations did not always yield correct
results.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In V2, no. 189, Micha Berger points out the interesting approximation
for pi ( 3 * 111 / 106 = 3.14150943396226) that can be obtained by
comparing similar words in I Kings 7:23 and II Chronicles 4:2, ascribing
this to Isaac Newton. A thorough analysis of this exegesis can be found
in an article entitled "On The Rabbinical Analysis of an Enhanced
Biblical Value of PI", by Shlomo Edward G. Belaga. A postscript version
of this paper can be found at the mail-jewish site (entitled pi.ps). The
paper states that the "discovery" is quite modern, being made by Rabbi
Matityahu Hakohen Munk". I am not aware of any evidence that Newton was
aware of this proof, despite his (Newton's) "obsession with the temple's
plans and dimensions" [R.S. Westfall, "Never at Rest", Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1987 p. 346-348]. Last year I heard this exegesis repeated on
Israeli radio (Arutz 7) in the name of the GR"A. Again, as far as I
know, there is no evidence for such an attribution. As stated in the
Talmud, "He who attributes a source correctly bring redemption to the
world".

Saul Stokar

> Did you all see the great story R' Meiselman relates in Tradition about
> the woman who came to his uncle asking to wear a tallis in Shul?
> Brilliant!
> 
> YGB

The incident appeared in print in Tradition six months earlier on p. 41
of our article on Women's Prayer Groups (Tradition 32:2, pp. 5-118
(Spring 1998)). R. Meiselman saw that section of our MS a year before
that.
			Aryeh

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> How do you define ruach hakodesh?  Once we all agree on terms I think
> many differences will fall. 
>

That may well be. My working definition is that of the Rambam, which I
think is also that of the Ramban. I am not espousing a view that Chazal
had nevu'ah, although the bas kol concept may be akin to that. I think I
made this clear in my dialogue with RDG, but I am happy to reiterate it.

YGB

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

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer wrote:

> The incident appeared in print in Tradition six months earlier on p. 41
> of our article on Women's Prayer Groups (Tradition 32:2, pp. 5-118
> (Spring 1998)). R. Meiselman saw that section of our MS a year before
> that. 
> 			Aryeh
> 

I certainly did not mean to offend, c"v. I received a gift subscription to
the journal in question that began with this issue only. It is certainly
peculiar that the editors allowed R' Meiseleman to quote the ma'aseh
without referencing an earlier appearance.

Be that as it may, the ma'aseh remains morah'dike regardless of this
interesting sidebar issue! 

YGB

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

My source for associating Newton with that gematria is:
J. Brook 1988: The God of Isaac Newton,
in: eds. J. Fauvel, et al., Let Newton Be!, Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 166-183.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 16-Mar-99: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 304:7-305:6
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 50b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 17-20

RDE - Yad Moshe: >> The Rosh noted
that one could disagree with the gaonim - if there were solid proofs. <<

RYGB:>> But, RYGB you miss the point.  Chazal did not tell us that information. 
> Rishonim did.  BIG difference. No? 
>
No, REDT! Perhaps vis-a-vis themselves it made a difference whether a 
Rishon or an Amora said something - but, from our perspective they are 
all seraphim, ofanim v'chayos ha'kodesh asher kol divreihem yesodam 
b'harerei kodesh!<<

Question, isn't it possible that since the Geonim came to conlusion A that they 
factored in the proiofs for shito B and dismissed them?

This gets to be quite circular.

I once retold a disgreement I had with my rebbe (R. Yeruchem Gorelcik)
The listener respnded, "don't you think your rebbe was aware of your objection 
and still feltthe way he did anyway?'

Ok. Let's apply this.

If we contradict an Odom gadol with an "offene Mishno" shouldn't we first 
assume the Gadol knew this Mishno?  (apparently not from the Rakeefet kletzker 
story. <smile>)

And if an Acharon contradicts a Rishon's understanding of a Gemoro, Didn't the 
Rishon KNOW that objection and shouldn't we assume he dealt with it?

Re: Igros Moshe,  if we find a contradiction from a Gemoro - shound't we assume 
that R. Moshe took that into consideration anyway, and that perhaps our 
undersanding of that Gemoro is incorrect?

IOW, how can anyone ever come up with an original objection, unless perhaps via 
an arachaeological unearthing of previous undiscovered material? 

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         ]