Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 193

Wednesday, March 17 1999

• Re: Learning aggadah
• Re: Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Re: Changing Minhogim
• Re: matza
• Re: matza
• Re: Rav Lichtenstein's view of Edah
• Re: Hazal vs. Rishonim
• Teamwork Clarification
• Chaning Minhogim
• Angels in the Bais Medrash
• Re: contradicting others
• Re: Angels in the Bais Medrash
• Re: Talmud Torah (Acharonim)
• Changing Minhogim
• Chazal vs. Rishonim
• learning Torah
• kitniyot
• Re: learning Torah
• Re: Chazal vs. Rishonim

In a message dated 3/16/99 1:22:05 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< You are welcome to feel comfortable that Maharsha was mekhaven to
 Hazal's real intent.  And I will feel just as comfortable judging the
 Maharsha's explanation on the basis of its persuasiveness or, to use
 your term, "plausibility."
 
 I find it surprising (and telling) that you consider it possible that a
 text without an authoritative interpretation might be "useless" and not
 worth learning.  However, given that much of mikraei kodesh falls into
 that category, I suggest you rethink your assumptions.
  >>

I think that in Eli's response to R. Ginsparg, he left out another crucial
element, that of pedagogical process. One can learn even fully halachik
sections of Talmud, never consulting Rashi or Tosafot, and come up with a
sensible, reasonable running Pshat which is 100% correct, and thereby fulfill
the mitzvah of Talmud Torah, which, lets face it, should really be our main
concern. The fact that the pshat thus derived may not match that of the
classical commentaries means it may not be quite as useful for the
determination of Halcha, but as Mitvas Talmud Torah, whats the problem? What
is achieved in this case is a fully valid pedagogical approach to mastering
the intricacies of the reading of the text of the Talmud. Why wouldn't a
reading of Aggadita using the same method be just as valid? If Aggadita is in
the Gemara to teach us moral and philosophical lessons,as I believe it is,
then derive what lesson you will, and let the Maharal derive what lesson he
will. In fact, I am hard pressed to find a good reason to worry as to whether
or not the stories themselves are true. 

Jordan Hirsch

In a message dated 3/16/99 3:13:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< Uh, I don't think so. I am not sure that shittos acharonim in and of
 themselves are TT. Do you have any proofs? L'ma'aseh there is little
 difference, of course, since whether it is TT or not, we must engage in
 it. >>
 I am wondering if on this point, you might make a distinction between Shut
literature, and Chidushim and essays.

Jordan Hirsch  

In a message dated 3/16/99 3:59:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 Aderabbo, didn't R. Chaim Brisker make a career out of assuming the Rambam is
 always right and then reconcilling everry internal and external stiro?   Why
not
 just say, "If the Gemoro says x and the Rambma syas Y the Rambam is toeh?"
Eloe >>

On this point alone, Rich, I would just like to point out parenthetically that
as more scholarship is done in this area, by R' Kapoch, et al, that like the
old joke on the subject, the ta'ut may be in the printers hands.....

Jordan 

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

> <<
> In fact I was referring to the fact that Chazal points out that
> Avraham and lot had Matzah even before Yetzias Mitzraim
> >>
> 
> Ibn Ezra points out that their having matza has no special significance vis a
> vis what we do on Pesach.  As he comments, if you had guests show up at your
> door unexpected, what would you do, have them wait for 2 hours for bread, or
> throw together a quick dough and make matza.
> 
> EDT
> 

I'm curious to know the intent behind this post. 
1. you are bringing the ibn ezra for the sake of limud torah but in
reality it has no bearing on my point because I'm quoting chazal who DO
say it was important that it was on pesach
2. You believe that the ibn ezra is giving p'shat in chazal, ie-it
happened to be pesach, but that wasn't the main point.
3. You know that Chazla say that it was important that it was on pesach,
yet you believe the ibn ezra is saying a better "more pashut p'shat" and
therefore you prefer the ibn ezras explanation and therefore are telling
me that my point is weakened.
If it's one, I say thank you because I never saw that ibn ezra and I like
learning new things.by the way where is this ibn ezra)
If it's two, I think you're wrong but you have a right to learn this way
If it's three, then I ask why you prefer the ibn ezra over chazal,
specifically when dozens of other gedolim have built divrei torah and
machshava based on this medrash. Why would you support the minority
opinion in this matter. (it's one thing for the ibn ezra to have this
opinion--it was his, but why would you go like it and reject chazal and
the meforshim which are based on this chazal)
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 3/17/99 12:38:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< If it's one, I say thank you because I never saw that ibn ezra and I like
 learning new things.by the way where is this ibn ezra)
 If it's two, I think you're wrong but you have a right to learn this way
 If it's three, then I ask why you prefer the ibn ezra over chazal,
 specifically when dozens of other gedolim have built divrei torah and
 machshava based on this medrash. Why would you support the minority
 opinion in this matter. (it's one thing for the ibn ezra to have this
 opinion--it was his, but why would you go like it and reject chazal and
 the meforshim which are based on this chazal) >>

Elie, I think you are totally off base on this one. Why is it so important to
look deeply into R' Teitz's motivations? I think bringing this point up opens
up fascinating questions of the relationship between the lessons learned from
Midrashic and aggadic material, and how they play out against the pashut
peshat. Why do these approaches have to be mutually exclusive?

Jordan

I too would greatly appreciate receiving a copy of Rav Aharon's letter
either via fax or e-mail attachment.
Fax: 972-3-5351250    e-mail: frimea@mail.biu.ac.il

	Todah merosh
		Aryeh

It is certainlyl a logical distinction, that I would willingly accept. I
await any ra'ayos l'kan o l'kan!


On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

>  I am wondering if on this point, you might make a distinction between
> Shut literature, and Chidushim and essays. 
> 
> Jordan Hirsch  
> 

YGB

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

RDE - Yad Moshe:>>In sum I don't think that Rav Tendler should automatically be 
held accountable for the factual basis of Rav Moshe's rulings. I agree, however,
with the point that there needs to be teamwork between a posek and experts in 
the field.<<

Ein hochi nami.  I was giving an idealized scenario wrt to combining the best of
both worlds, i.e. the in-deth Yeshiva model in conert with the Torah-Umada 
model.  I am only aware of a handful of cases where this was actually in 
practice.

As I've noted before, Dr. MS Feldblum gave a modern spin of Sanhedrin knowing 
"70 leshonos" as a reference to modern disciplines, eg biology. medicine, 
physics, enginerring, etc.; that the Gadol of today needs to understand 
tehcnical terminology in the same vein Mordechai needed to know bigsono 
voseresh's language...

Rich Wolpoe 
                                      

RAffy:>>
When one looks at nusach issues from a psak perspective, RSZ and the
GRA's tendencies to change the nusach don't seem as revolutionary.  
More comments are still welcome. <<

Ok Micha, round #2.  

Here's a case of historical revisionism at work:

Mehsulam ben Klonymous, Machaszor Vitri, etc. etc. were Rishonim (although not 
poskim in the gneral sense)  As such they were well aware of the TB issues and 
conflicts involved.  Here are some of their possible POV's:

1) The TB at certain points wasng lav davka and therefore there was 
flexibility...
2) This TB is not k'halocho (IOW there wer other sugyos that might have suported
them)a
3) They had mesorros independent of the TB, etc. (IOW, TB included universal 
concepts, adn sometimes concepts restircted to the minhogim in Bovel.  Europe 
had an alternate, valid Minhog)   

Bottom line pre-supposition:  The formulators of the Nusach Ashkenaz by and 
large knew what they were doing. (this does not prevent some textual erros from 
creeping in, and therfore allows for low-criticism, just not high cirticsm).  
For a justification of keeping the Siddur as is, see Philip Birnbaums' intro to 
the Siddur.  Birnbaum engages in numerous "low-criticim" techniques, yet treats 
the Siddur with the same kind of reverence as Tanach.

Now comes "Geonim" 500 years later who look into the TB and say, Ribbono Shel 
Olam, these Asheknaz Siddurim must be the products of "amei ho'retz"!  The TB 
says X and the Siddur says Y.  Must be, the editors were unkowledgeable, etc. 
etc. 

Bottom line presuspposition: The siddur and Nusach are revisable becasue they 
are full of errors, and the redactors did not know what they were doing; the 
nusach grew in random leaps and bounds. Therefore high riticism is apprpos and 
the Nusach is revisable, etc.

IMHO this high-criticims of Siddur redaction was the immediate cause for the 
subsequent  major revisions of nusach about 180 years ago.  Hameivin yovin.

Hypothetically speaking, had those Geonim treated the Siddur with the same 
respect as the Mishno Torah, instead of revising the text, they could have 
justified each point of it, much in the way Rav Chaim did for the Rambam.  After
All doesn't the Mishno Torah lich'ora disagree with offene sugyos?  Elo mai, the
Rambam had:
1) alternate peshat
2) other sugyos to bakc him up
3) alternate Nusach in the TB. etc.

It's one thing for the Raavad to argue with the Rambam in a hago'ho, it's 
naother to revise the TEXT of the Rambam. (Exempting low-critical toaus Sofrim, 
etc.).


KT,
RW

<<
"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)
>>

Sounds an awful lot like prophecy to me, and I always thought we don't pasken
from prophecy.  Go figure.  

Seriously, though, we have been at this for quite a while, each one throwing
out sources and counter-sources.  One can find someone of stature to back up
just about any position.  To find a quote here and there from latter day
acharonim, to explain what Chazal did or did not do, when Chazal themselves
did not explain this, puts the whole explanation into question.  If R. Tzadok,
for example, is the first to mention a notion about how Chazal worked one must
wonder why no one before him bothered to explain it as he does.  After all, he
is not introducing new concepts, rather he is applying well known terms to
prior generations.  Why didn't those very people to whom he attributes these
ideas bother to explain themselves?  And to attribute these explanations,
whether from later acharonim, or even rishonim, as being binding on Chazal
that this is the only way we can understand the way Chazal worked is
troubling.

Many of the quotes being bandied about lately are trying to show a hierarchy
of generations.  I do not think anyone here is questioning that tana'im, in
one way or another, trump amora'im (BTW, are we to take chamorim literally?
could you look that up in the Guide to Literal and Figurative in the Works of
Chazal ;)  As a side question, if we are assuming that ruach hakodesh was the
standard by which we measure greatness, then why didn't Chazal simply measure
every tanna's ruach hakodesh quotient, and give us a listing.  That way, we
could all know how to resolve any machlokes tanna'im, the one with the higher
RHQ wins.  But this isn't done, and in fact we are told why we follow certain
people sometimes (sheh-nimuko imo, no mention of RHQ).

But all of that is beside the point.  We are not discussing hierarchy of
acceptance.  What we were discussing is reliance upon some source other than
intellect for deriving halacha (which Lo bashamayim hee seems to reject), and
if there was such a thing what it was, and if there was why didn't Chazal
themselves identify it.  To twist this simple question into a debate about the
authority of Chazal, or later figures, is to miss the point entirely.  

REClark was trying to get it back on track, only to have it veer off again by
challenges about understanding aggadita and the like.  And in defense of that
position, we can not really know what Chazal intended, no matter how holy the
person of a later generation is.  What we can do is look at the interpretation
and see if it satisfies our own logic.  And yes, when it comes to aggada, why
can't I be entitled to my own opinion, even if I am a daas yachid.  If it does
not impact on halacha in any way (and if you insist, on hashkafa too), why
can't I give my own interpretation to the Rabba Bar Bar Chanas?  Even maybe,
dare I say, take them literally.  The idea behind these stories (even if we
take them literally, we must wonder why they were incorporated into the
g'mara) is to teach a lesson.  Chazal did not tell us that lesson.  A rishon
might have a better idea what Chazal might have intended, but he has no
certainty.  And if I see a different lesson, is that lesson any less real or
less important?  If the aggada speaks to me one way, and to you another, who
is to say that we are not both correct, and that there are many lesson to be
derived from cryptic stories.

And as many have said before, the authority of any person is only as strong as
his acceptance by others around him.  R. Eliezer certainly had quite a few
proofs on his behalf, however, R. Yehoshua did not accept his authority, and
others sided with R. Yehoshua.  Similarly, with Rabban Gamliel and the
calculation of the calendar.  He won because he was accepted as the authority.

We do the same.  We have accepted certain people's opinoins as binding upon
us.  If anyone personally feels superior to those we have already accepted,
and builds enough of a following, he can go his own way, and his followers may
follow.  Many poskim have written against the prevailing opinoin on certain
matters, and their arguments have won over those who disagree, and they have
gained acceptance.  Rav Moshe and others take controversial stands on some
issues.  Those who follow those p'sakim do so because they have accepted R.
Moshe, or whichever posek, as an authority for them.  Certain rishonim have
gained that stature as well.  This is why we do not necessarily follow a newly
found rishonic manuscript.  If it was merely a matter of tapping into ruach
hakodesh, and calculating RHQs, why should it make a difference when a
manuscript was found.  If it is rishonic, it by definition has more clout than
any acharon.  The answer is that it doesn't.  Not because of inability to
measure RHQ, but because we, as a people, have not accepted it.  We must look
at it now, and see how it fits into what we have already accepted.  If it
fits, it joins the ranks.  If not, it is discarded.

I have already written significantly longer than I intended, and I am sure
this will not go uncommented upon, so I shall end here and await the grenades.
I hope those angels in the Bais Medrash have bomb-proof wings :)

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ


EDT

<<
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? 
>>

Unless you assume that all these people are infallible, I could argue maybe
they simply forgot that point.  Or did not consider it.  Unless a reason is
given and then rejected, and the reason for rejection is written as well, we
can not assume anything about what went into the opinion written.  Or to take
a quote out of context, lo ra'inu eyno r'aya.

EDT

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
> "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)
> >>
> 
> Sounds an awful lot like prophecy to me, and I always thought we don't
> pasken from prophecy.  Go figure. 
> 

Guess we just dismiss the CI, huh?

> Seriously, though, we have been at this for quite a while, each one
> throwing out sources and counter-sources.  One can find someone of

Gee, I missed the counter-sources. Could you please recapitulate them for
me, since I do not recall seeing them?

> stature to back up just about any position.  To find a quote here and
> there from latter day acharonim, to explain what Chazal did or did not
> do, when Chazal themselves did not explain this, puts the whole
> explanation into question.  If R. Tzadok, for example, is the first to
> mention a notion about how Chazal worked one must wonder why no one
> before him bothered to explain it as he does.  After all, he is not
> introducing new concepts, rather he is applying well known terms to
> prior generations.  Why didn't those very people to whom he attributes
> these ideas bother to explain themselves?  And to attribute these
> explanations, whether from later acharonim, or even rishonim, as being
> binding on Chazal that this is the only way we can understand the way
> Chazal worked is troubling. 
> 

I have trouble with your troubles.

The earlier generations did not have to justify their authority:

1. Since it is based on acceptance, it is only retrospective.

2. They did not face challenges from Maskillim and the like.

There is a far greater implication in your position. What R' Chaim
Brisker, or the Rogatchover, or R' Shimon Shkop, did with the assessment
and analysis of Rishonim is not a derech we find the Rishonim proposing
themselves. L'shitashcha, then, we should really ignore their approaches
as dubious at best.

> Many of the quotes being bandied about lately are trying to show a
> hierarchy of generations.  I do not think anyone here is questioning
> that tana'im, in one way or another, trump amora'im (BTW, are we to take
> chamorim literally?  could you look that up in the Guide to Literal and
> Figurative in the Works of Chazal ;)  As a side question, if we are

A response in kind: Considering some of the statements here, there is no
doubt, is there ;-).

I am still waiting for sources - either from you, REDT, or REC. You have
bothe eloquently stated a POV that I associate with certain circles - dare
I say this? - associated with a certain fashionably "scholarly" and
"sophisticated" circles in Orthodoxy. But, with a marked lack of precedent
and proof.

YGB

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

RYGB:
>Uh, I don't think so. I am not sure that shittos acharonim in and of
>themselves are TT. Do you have any proofs? L'ma'aseh there is little
>difference, of course, since whether it is TT or not, we must engage in
>it.

What????????????????

Of course it's Talmud Torah!!!
Rambam, Hilchos TT 1:11 et al.  Even most Avodah digests are clearly
Talmud Torah.  This is clearly what the Rambam calls Gemara!  In the
Rambam's system, Torah is not divided in to two parts, it's divided in to
three:  Mikra (the words of Tanach) , Mishna (meaning Halacha) and
Gemara, everything else connected to learning , including Talmud Bavli,
Pardes, two chevrusas arguing about a Ktzos etc...

Eli Clark's point stands:  This discussion (except for the pontificating
:-) ) about the gevaldig holiness and binding nature of Rabbinical
pronouncements in the post-Chazal era has nothing to do with whether the
statements are Talmud Torah.  They are.

Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
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]

Richard Wolpoe writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Questions:
1)  Has the Gro's 2 matzo shito been nispashet?  
next Question; was Rabbeinu Tam's shito wrt zmanim nispashet?

2) What binds us to Cherem DRGMH bzman hazeh?  did they not expire at
year 5000,
(the old Y5K problem <smile>)?

3) How are we bound by kitniyos?  <pun intended> In general, when is a
psak 
binding on a community?  On klal Yisroel?  Can we go back and revive
minhogei 
Beis Shammai?

4) Re: Taus, bepashtus Rabbeinu Tam felt that Rasshi (and the Rambam's)
shit o 
legabei Tefillin are betaus.  Can we now don RT Tefillin in lieu of
Rashi's?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I also have had such far-reaching questions about the constitutional
mechanism of the Mesora.  You have asked similar questions in past
issues.  Unfortunately, I don't believe there is that one far-reaching
approach you and I and others would like.  IT seems to me, having seen
what I have about these issues (not a lot, but enough to say what I am
about to) that the Rabbinical Leadership and National Hanhaga Consensus
of Klal Israel has been to take everything on a case by case basis. 

I know it would make things easier for all of us if there was was a
mechanical system (If x, then minhag nispahet.  If y, then Gr'a is
accepted....), but your four questions above, and your many similarly
based past questions make it clear to me that the only fixed rule is that
there is no one, all-encompasing rule, or list of rules, to solve these
issues.

Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
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]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
> Do you view these takkanot
> as equivalent to, say, yom tov sheni?  Or shevu'at heiset?  To the
> mitzvah of eating marror bi-zman ha-zeh or taking lulav kol shiv'ah?  I
> don't. 
> 

Well then, please tell us the difference - from our perspective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A rav, a Halachic authority, is asking what the difference is -from our
perspective- between the practice of not eating peas on Pesach and
outright Takanos D'Rabbanan??  Dear, dear Rabbi B, mechaber s'forim,
choshuv rav, and I am dust under your feet in learning, im ata k'malach,
ani k'chamor, are your postings in #192 intended to make me faint out of
shock?  I know you want to make a point, but ....!

If your point is "A good Jew keeps Y"T Sheini.  A good Jew doesn't eat
Peas on Pesach."  Fine.  But halachically...?!  

From our perspective:  Halachically, in psak halacha much greater force
is given to D'Rabbanans than Rishonic customs!  Consider the
then-prevalent issue of matering Kitnios for the soldiers in the Russian
army.   Violating a d'rabbanan is a clear, unequivated Aveira.  Makas
Mardus.   Then there are safek issues...  You might as well have asked
what the difference is -from our perspective- between D'Oraissas and
D'Rabbanans!

There is a story out there about the Chasam Sofer who was one year
compelled to matir kitnios one pesach (I think for soldiers)because of
hardship.  In order not to appear reformed for issuing such a ruling, he
offered the following analogy:  The entirety of Jewish Practice is like
the human body, some parts (heart, brain) being more essential than
others  (Hands, feet, ears...)  When one is healthy, all parts are there.
 When an illness takes hold, the drastic option of amputation may be
necessary to preserve the whole body.  So it is with a heavy heart that I
undertake this amputation of Kitnios this year.  

As for our hashkafic perspective, of course I take real d'Rabbanans more
seriously.  But I can't explain why just now.  I will have to think about
it.  (I don't eat Kitnios on Pesach!)  

PLEASE clarify.
B'Yedidus V'Koved Rosh as ever
Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
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]

> 
> Uh, I don't think so. I am not sure that shittos acharonim in and of
> themselves are TT. Do you have any proofs? L'ma'aseh there is little
> difference, of course, since whether it is TT or not, we must engage in
> it.
> 
Rav Soloveitchik was very insistent that learning about de-rabban
halachot one satisfied the Torah obligation of limud Torah.
Though I didn't hear it explicitly I would assume that he also meant
that learning a chiddush of Rav Chaim was included in the mitzva of
talmud Torah.

If studying achronim is not TT then why engage in it?
Why not just study Talmud maybe with rishonim as in universities.
In general is there any difference in the mitzva of TT between
learning in a traditional yeshiva and learning in a Talmud department?

Eli Turkel

> 
>If the Gro by virtue of his erudition can undo widespread accepted practice, so 
>why not give up on kitniyos, matzo ashirro, Cheirem de RGMH etc.  After all, 
>Sefardim do not adhere to any of the above either (well more or less).
> 

I was confused by the comparison of a takanah with a pshat in in the
gemara.
Kitniyot was a gezerah to prevent confusion with chametz and this custom
was accepted, over time, by ashkenazi communities.

The question of shekia is one of interpreting the gemara.
If we are convinced that the Gra (and geonim) were right then the custom
changed. In fact many communities still keep Rabbenu Tam - I believe
chiefly for historical reasons - ie it was the custom certainly in
Eastern/nothern Europe. In fact in more southern communities Rabbenu
Tam was rarely completely accepted.

Similarly the cherem of rabbenu Gershon.
I was completely confused by matza Ashira - what proof is there that
one shita of rishonim is more correct than others in terms of
mei peiros in the gemara?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 3/17/99 10:46:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,
turkel@math.tau.ac.il writes:

<< > 
 Rav Soloveitchik was very insistent that learning about de-rabban
 halachot one satisfied the Torah obligation of limud Torah.
 Though I didn't hear it explicitly I would assume that he also meant
 that learning a chiddush of Rav Chaim was included in the mitzva of
 talmud Torah. >>

As I was explaining to Eli Clark last night, I don't have my s'forim anywhere
near my computer, so I cannot tell you exactly where this is, but I know that
in one of the compilations of his shiurim, perhaps Chamesh Drashot, the Rav
spoke beautifully about the personal meaning of Talmud Torah for him, and
explained that when he learned, he felt the direct presence of his friends and
teachers, like the Rambam, the Ranban, the Gro, and his father and
grandfather, in the room, discussing with him the point in question. He made
it very clear that the Mitzvah of TT is tied up in the act of creativity in
understanding the text, and that included whichever Rishonim, Acharonim, or
Talmidim with whom he was discussing it.

Jordan  

On Wed, 17 Mar 1999 raffyd@juno.com wrote:

> 
> There is a story out there about the Chasam Sofer who was one year
> compelled to matir kitnios one pesach (I think for soldiers)because of
> hardship.  In order not to appear reformed for issuing such a ruling, he
> offered the following analogy:  The entirety of Jewish Practice is like
> the human body, some parts (heart, brain) being more essential than
> others (Hands, feet, ears...)  When one is healthy, all parts are there. 
>  When an illness takes hold, the drastic option of amputation may be
> necessary to preserve the whole body.  So it is with a heavy heart that
> I undertake this amputation of Kitnios this year. 
> 

And how is that different in substance than Rabbanan permitting demai for
a poor person, wayfarer, soldier etc.? 

If you would like to see in all starkness how a Rishon's pronouncements
are afforded the same dignity in Halacha as that of an Amora, take a look
at the ET entry on CDRG!

YGB

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

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


[ 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         ]