Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 206

Thursday, September 9 1999

• Toward a definition of Psak
• Glatt Beis Yosef
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Hendel, Teitz and Dam-Dom
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah
• Re: Toward a Definition of Chumra (was: of Psak)
• Re: Glatt Beis Yosef
• Baby Wipes, b'Kitzur Nimratz
• Re: Toward a Definition of Psak (fwd)
• Lower criticism
• Baby Wipes
• Re: Baby Wipes, b'Kitzur Nimratz
• Re: Baby Wipes, b'Kitzur Nimratz
• Re: Hendel, Teitz and Dam-Dom
• Re: Gadol vs gedulah

I am admittedly budding in on an exchange which I haven't been following
but I will anyway.  The following exchange has been written

"Rabbi Bechhofer responded to this <<< FWIW, on a tangent, R' Yosef Engel
> (Asvan D'Orysa) says Issurei Shabbos cannot be issurei cheftza, as
> issurim that are tallui b'zman cannot be issurei cheftza. >>>
> 
> This is not a tangent, but an important part of this discussion, and I
> thank you for bringing it to our attention. It raises at least two other
> interesting questions: 
> 
> 1) In what context does R. Engel make that point? Why does it matter
> whether the swing is an issur cheftza or not? If my theory is wrong,
> about the difference between paskening on an object and paskening on an
> action, then what is his point? 
>

My Asvan d'Orysa is out on loan to one of our fellow listmembers, so I
cannot answer directly. I am cc'ing RYZ, who, I suspect, may have an AdO
handy to check up on it.
end quote
I am the listmember who has the Asvun D'Oraysahso this is what he says
(klal yud, first paragraph).  He brings the sevarah attributed to him by
RYGB bshem "the acharonim" but he himself brings a raayeh from the gemarah
brachos 53b that a "ner shehidliko akum beshabbos" is considered a meleches
aveirah and therefore a melachah on shabbos IS an issur cheftzah.  He
himself holds that this is a machlokes between the yerushalmi and bavli.
He then proceeds to bring a raayah from the tosfos yom tov shabboss perek 7
mishnah 2 D"H hazoreah that from his kushya is mashma that he also held
that issur shabbos Is an issur cheftzah (he asks why the mishnah used the
lashon Hazoreah, hachoresh... instead of zeriyah, charishah ...and the
asvun deoraysah feels that his question is based on his understanding of
issurei shabbos as issurei cheftzah and not issurei gavra, but the asvun
deoraysah then states that according to the "acharonim" we could understand
why the mishna used the language Hazoreyah etc because it is an issur gavra
- ayen shom)
he then brings a gemarah shabbos 137a where he explains a machlokes Rav
Ashi and Rav Kehana that they are arguing in this inyan - whether issurei
shabbos are issurei gavra or issurei cheftzah, (note - but there definitely
other ways to understand the gemarah).
So in sum, his shita is more that they are issurei cheftza, although even
he is quite "wishy washy" about it, bringing raayos back and forth.
(personally, I don't really understand how a maaseh could be called a
cheftza at all, but he clearly uses the term "cheftza" to refer to a
maaseh) I hope I enriched your discussion.  Go on l'hagdil Torah Ulehaadirah!
Shaul Weinreb

I noticed a meat ad saying 'Glatt-Beis Yosef'.  I have never seen this before 
and was wondering if someone can enlighten me as to what shitas Beis Yosef it 
refers to and why it should suddenly be an issue as I cannot remember ever 
seeing it advertised before. 

-Chaim

In a message dated 9/8/99 7:37:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il writes:

<< 
 If I understand you - you are asserting that the star system i.e. gedolim 
system
 needs to be replaced with a relative gadol system. The local rav should be 
treated
 as if he were a gadol. But as the Amshinover Rebbe told a friend of mine 
"The Moreh
 D'Asrah disappeared with the telephone and fax machine."  A Rav can not 
compete with
 the Igros Moshe or even with Rav Shimon Eider or Artscroll. The modern
 standardization of halacha and gedolim got established with the acceptance of
 Shulchan Aruch. The modern standardization of hashkofa probably started with
 Maharal. >>
An interesting insight on the impact of technology on halacha. I'd be 
interested on the list's take on a likely issue for the next generation. Just 
as various CD ROMs can make one, with some practice, into a "Sinai"I can see 
the day in the near future where someone with artificial intelligence 
expertise designs an expert sysem(I'll copyright oker harim as the name:-)) 
based on input (real or virtual based on shut) from an intergenerational all 
star team of poskim. How will we react? 

KVCT,
Joel Rich

I'm consistently a bit behind the list, but I've been reading RJH's
Dam-Dom material, since I started the thread.  Now, I understand
your arguments as to:

1) whether dam vs. dom changes meaning, and
2) if the baal kriah read the wrong word, do we make him go back, which
     depends on the answer to (1).

However, this has gotten away from my initial query:

the baal kriah noting that:

1) the mesorah and the chumashim and the meforshim were split on
whether the word *IS* Dam or Dom,

2) dam vs. dom makes a change in meaning (per R' Teitz, but also 
just on his own understanding of Hebrew),

LECHATCHILAH should he read the phrase twice?

The only sources we know about this are 

1) the MB in 685 s"k 18 suggesting that it is correct to repeat
zeicher/zecher (an unsourced sevarah?); and
2) the Rav as reported by Herschel Schachter repeating the zeicher
verse in Ashrei.

We can understand (2) as an extrapolation from (1) since they are
based on uncertainty about the same word (z-ch-r).

Is it a reasonable extrapolation to read Dam-Dom with its inconclusive
mesorah twice?  It seems to me that the issue of uncertainty and its
resolution in psak is bigger than the technical grammatical question of
whether or not dam vs. dom is correct - stipulate that the sources 
are uncertain, and that the baal kriah thought that the change in vowel
changed the meaning.

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> replies to me and writes:
:> I actually think the yeshiva velt has this very wrong. Which was the entire
:> point I was stepping in to make.

: At this point - the discussion has shifted from the significance of those
: who know more that us - to the rejection of my framework e.g., the world
: of the yeshivos.

Well, to be honest, I'm asserting that my framework asserts things different
than yours. It's not like I invented my own opinion of gedulah from a vacuum.
I tried to make it clear that I don't believe that the people who make it to
the rank of gadol within the Yeshiva community don't actually hold by this
have vs. have-not model. (I don't think anyone who believes in such a model
would ever believe themselves capable of jumping the chasm.)

:                  It is one thing to insist - contrary to the evaluation of
: the world - that Rabbi Kaplan was a gadol or at least was more authoritative
: than his footnotes.

I see I still am not making myself clear. I don't believe in the whole concept
of "a gadol" as you believe it. I believe that X can be greater than Y and
therefore be a gadol in Y's eyes. But if gedulah is a quantitative and not a
qualitative difference, then there is no absolute "a gadol".

:                     It is quite another thing to insist that you know better
: than the yeshiva world how to utilize and define authority

Again, it's not just me. While I live within the Yeshiva community
sociologically, there is a reason why my belief-system is not Yeshivish.
Again, that's not to say I believe I know better, but rather that those
who educated me do.

: If I understand you - you are asserting that the star system i.e. gedolim
: system needs to be replaced with a relative gadol system. The local rav
: should be treated as if he were a gadol.

Again, pretend for the moment that there is no "a gadol" -- remember, a relative
system. I'm saying that the local rav's relative gedulah needs to be recognized.
Of course, that's only relative to you. If you have access to someone who has
greater paskening ability than the LOR, then the local Rav would be similarly
required to recognize /that/ poseik's gedulah.

Also, we should realize that gedulah is multidimensional. R' Mosheh had major
gedulah in halachah. However, he believed (as per B'risk) in making a hashkafah
out of not dwelling on hashkafah. So, while he does make hashkafic statements
throughout D'rash Mosheh, bimchilas kivodo ha*gadol* I think it's unfair to
assume that he was the generation's greatest abstract philospher. (It is in
that arena alone that I'd consider RAK one of our generation's greats.) It
would also be nice to recognize the gedolim in non-learning areas: the great
ba'alei tzedakah and ba'alei chessed, true tzaddikim and ba'alei mussar.

Tell me the truth, when you picture "a gadol", don't you picture a
rosh yeshiva with incredible powers of p'sak? Aren't there other models
of greatness we can aspire to?


:                                                           The modern
: standardization of halacha and gedolim got established with the acceptance of
: Shulchan Aruch. The modern standardization of hashkofa probably started with
: Maharal.

I have no idea how the acceptance of the S"A shows adherence to the boolean
vs quantitative model. (I would also think that the Rihal is the earliest
source for the "normative hashkafah" I absorbed from contemporary O culture.)

: But to state flatly that everybody who values gedolim above the lesser lights
: - is wrong?!

One more time, just to make sure I'm clear this time around: Greater gedulah
means greater value to their opinion. And because of feedback effects, twice
the knowledge would me more than twice the authority. It's non-linear. However,
one shouldn't value "the gedolim" to the exclusion of seeing the gedulah
of lesser lights.

IOW, while I can understand someone saying RAK was not a gadol (even in
hashkafic discussion), I can not understand someone saying that therefore
his opinion carries no more weight than one of our chaveirim here. (Nothing
against R' Akiva Miller.)

: Are you asserting that Da'as Torah is in essence merely psychological or
: sociological and doesn't arise from spiritual considerations i.e., the nature of
: Torah. Do you have any sources to justify the dismissal of the System?

I was talking about the sociological forces caused by particular kind of
belief in da'as Torah -- not that those forces created that belief, or
are part of the belief.

I find it interesting you capitalized system. Was that a typo, or intentional.
It's not "the system", it's "a system". A great and wonderful system. But not
a perfect one. I was educated in another system. I currently straddle the
fence on many issues, as that system is also great, wonderful, but flawed.
As to my source? I'm merely presenting a/the mod-O worldview.

For example, while the Yeshish LOR feels unable to pasken far too many
sha'alos, the most recent RCA convention discussed the problem of LORs who
don't forward enough she'eilos -- questions of geirus or r"l mamzeirus
that were handled by the local rav without referral to that rav's poseik.

BTW, don't you think that relative gedulah implies relative da'as Torah?
The D"T model held by the Yeshiva velt implies a far greater unanimity of
opinion than borne out by history. Why do you think that community needs
to edit out all record of dissenting opinions in order to allow gedolim to
remain in people's eyes as gedolim?

:> I would agree with this statement. However, saying there's a quantitative
:> difference is not the same as saying that their authority is different in
:> kind.

:> (Actually, it's arguable that bi'inyanei machshavah, R' Kaplan has greater
:> gedulah than either.

: Arguable?! While we obviously agree that all the above were far greater than
: either of us - I find your assertion simply astounding that the world so
: misjudged Rabbi Kaplan.

You compared RAK with R' Moshe -- a man who explitely said he does not
believe in making a study of machshavah. Although his position was clearly
not as extreme as that guzmah, it does describe a gadol who didn't aspire
in this direction.

As to the world misjudging R' Kaplan.... The world we live in undervalues
aggadita in general. Should it then surprise me that it overlooks a man
whose primary focus was in presenting ikkarei emunah clearly by treating
Kabbalah rationalistically?

As I said, we're seeking gedolim in p'sak. That's what "the gedolim" connotes,
what it instinctively means. That's not to say it's the only form of greatness.
If we're discussing gedulah bip'sak alone, I wouldn't have made that comment.
But one of my points is that this limited definition isn't complete. And
therefore may not give authority where due when seeking an answer to a
non-halachic question.

I hope this explained my position. This post doesn't add much that I didn't
try to say before. And, as this discussion has become more of heat than light,
I'm not going to invest anything else in perpetuating it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  8-Sep-99: Revi'i, Bereshis
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 16

Micha Berger wrote:

> I thought I was clear by the use of the epithet. The CMC are people who
> collect chumros not because of the reason behind the particular chumrah,
> or because that's what their poseik rules, but because they have a need to
> collect chumros.

Also known as "competative frumkeit."

In a message dated 9/8/99 9:51:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, C1A1Brown@aol.com 
writes:

> I noticed a meat ad saying 'Glatt-Beis Yosef'.  I have never seen this 
before 
> 
>  and was wondering if someone can enlighten me as to what shitas Beis Yosef 
> it 
>  refers to and why it should suddenly be an issue as I cannot remember ever 
>  seeing it advertised before. 
>  
See Y"D 39:13

This is common in E"Y, there are also many Ashknazim that question the Miuch 
Umishmush done today, and ask for Chalak B"Y.

KVCT

Yitzchok Zirkind

While I do not wish to get involved in long discussions of the issue here,
I will give some brief background notes:

1. May Poskim hold there is no sechita mishum mefarek by niyar, including
R' Moshe, the Har Tzvi, the Tzitz Eliezer, RSZA and the Shemiras Shabos
K'Hilchoso. Even if it were an issur d'rabbonon (which these poskim do NOT
hold), we shall see, b'nidon didan yesh l'hattir. 

2. The HT and TE hold that unless at the end of the process you actually
collect the liquid you generate in the sechita, it is not considered psik
reisha d'nicha lei. Even if psik reisha d'lo ichpas lei is an issur
d'rabbonon, kana"l, b'nidon didan yesh l'hattir.

3. The TE notes that to constitue an issur d'orysa of mefarek there is a
shiur of liquid that needs be produced. The amount of liquid you can
squeeze out of a wipe even by wringing it falls far short of the shiur. He
klerrs whether it is shayach chatzi shiur asra Torah by mefarek and says,
probably not. Again, it may be a d'rabbonon.

4. Me'kol halein ta'amei, yesh makom l'hattir b'shufi. It is probably not
even a d'rabbonon, and the HT and TE permit, in a vein similar to that BEC
cited by RSO, to wet a paper tissue to clean oneself on Shabbos.

But even if it were a d'rabbonon, the halocho is that for tzorchei choleh
she'ein bo sakono one may transgress d'rabbonons on Shabbos (tzorech - not
just refu'ah!). The halocho is that a tinok has the status of a choleh
she'ein bo sakono. Therefore, it is permitted to use baby wipes even if
one might think that it would be assur d'rabbonon to use such wipes (such
as Wash and Dries) on a gadol.

YGB

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

Courtesy of yedidi ha'yakar RYZ.

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: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 01:20:30 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Subject: Re: Toward a Definition of Psak

In a message dated 9/8/99 12:01:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

>  > 1) In what context does R. Engel make that point? Why does it matter
>  > whether the swing is an issur cheftza or not? If my theory is wrong,
>  > about the difference between paskening on an object and paskening on an
>  > action, then what is his point? 
>  >
>  
>  My Asvan d'Orysa is out on loan to one of our fellow listmembers, so I
>  cannot answer directly. I am cc'ing RYZ, who, I suspect, may have an AdO
>  handy to check up on it.

Among the Nafkoh Mina's he brings the Yerushalmi that a stolen Matzoh one is 
not Yotzeh because it itself is the Aveiroh vs. one who is Koreia on Shabbos 
is Yotzei Kri'ah because it is not an Aveiroh but rather the person did an 
Aveiroh. (in the Beis Ho'otzar he refers to Taz C"M 208 in the beginning who 
makes this distinction when we say Kol Mah Domar Rachmonoh Lo Savid Ee Ovid 
Lo/Mhanee).

>   
>  > 2) Is chometz tallui b'zman? If a shailah arises and the rav paskens
>  > that something is chometz, is this not an issur cheftza? 
>  > 
>  
>  I really do not think so, according to the AdO. Pig is an issur cheftza.
>  Absent bittul, it cannot be changed to hetter. Chometz is not an issur
>  cheftza. It will be muttar l'achar zman. But, even chometz is not the same
>  as a baby swing. I do not thiink that which is banned by a psak - which
>  may be argued or rescinded - can ever be considered an issur cheftza.
>  This, too, relates to the AdO - to an adjacent siman on whether issurei
>  d'rabbonons are issurei cheftza or only gavra.

Actually the AdO entertains both views (Cheftza & Gavroh) by both issues 
(Zman & Drabonon), in Kllal 10, an interesting point is that WRT Issur 
Drabonon he discusses whether one needs a Kaporoh on a Shogeig since it 
wasn't a prohibited act, this would be a Stirah to saying that Shabbos is 
only Issur Gavroh and not Maaseh Issur, and yet one is Chayov Kaporoh on 
Shogeig.

There is also much written in RY"E's Beis Ho'otzar Ois Aleph Kllolim 122-127, 
I hope you have this at home.

The Ragitchover on Hil. Chomeitz Umatzoh 1:6, explains the Machlokes (Psachim 
28b 29a) whether Chomeitz Sheovar Olov Hapesech if it is Doreisoh or 
Drabonon, that the one who holds it is Doiraisoh he holds that the Chomeitz 
is an Issur "Atzmee", the one who holds Drabonon holds that it is only Gavroh.

)
From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu> 
Subject:

> Given that Elyosof is ben De'uel and also ben Re'uel, how do we 
> understand and explain that discrepancy?
> 
> Traditional/Static:  Re'uel and De'uel where there day #1 at Matan 
> Torah to provide alternate versions and Midrashic source material.  
> The fact that Reish resembles Daled may have to do with osiyos
> hamischalfos and have nothing to do with any revision or evolution - 
> despite that it resembles a revision.  And the original girso might 
> even have intended to resemble a revision, despite the fact that it 
> never happened.
> 
> IMHO, there is no one right perspective, they all are valid within their own 
> frame of reference.

I'm confused. There are several issues here: 1) What really happened? What 
was Moshe told to write?

===> Unknown!  We have several paradigms at play here.  Within any one, the 
answer is correct...


2) What defines a valid sefer Torah, and why?
With respect to #2, you can say Elu va-Elu. With respect to #1, only one 
possibility is correct.

3) Are certain positions with respect to #1 beyond the pale, so that we 
ought not to entertain them? Here one may hold that a specific view is 
wrong, but that it doesn't matter all that much.

===> My spin is based upon the Rambam's ikkar, yet allowing for innocent error, 
but disallowing intentional changes or the kind of redaction associated with 
"higher criticism"  That is where I draw the line.  And THAT line is similar for
TANACH AND for Talmud, that is I accept the very real possibility of scribal nad
printing errors, but reject the possibility of a forgery or a pseudopigraphic 
forgery, etc. In that sense, I am consistend.

===> One aspect that makes the Torah Special is the extra care that sofrim use 
to ensure an abolsute minimization of human error, thru complex rituals and a 
very high level of attention to detail, I would surmize that errors are RARE but
not aboslutely ruled out.  The fact is the Talmud was not printed with the same 
level of care (it would be a daunting challenge indeed) and that allows for the 
greater liklelihood of error.

===> Despite Mechy's attempts at making this into some deep academic exericse 
it's really NOT.  What I mean by "Lower ciriticism is a hashkofo!  It is a POV 
that says I accept the Torah/Nach/Talmud as emes BUT I allow for a careless 
error to creep into the process.  Therefore I reject a "magically" perfect text 
on the right and an artificially reconstructed text on the left!  Lower 
criticism is oen of several valid apporaches that allow for discrepancies 
without aserting some kind of forgery is at play.  It is a synthesis of emuno 
AND reason.


From the viewpoint of pshat in Humash, there is another
fundamental question. Is the orthographic similarity between dalet & resh 
significant? 

===> indeed.  I attmpeted to cover that within the rubric of osiyos hamishalfos.
 I discussed this very topic with my LOR and he used that to explain the daled 
reish switch (IOW just as the Redak did!). 

===> Furthermore I  realize that lower criticism is not necesarily the 
definitive answer to EVERY possible discrepancy.  EG, Chushim and Shucham might 
indeed have simply been 2 versions of the same name or perhaps was confused to 
his  hearing deficit <yes I AM joking>.

===> The bottom line for me is if we find 9 discrepancies, don't panic.  
Considering 3300 years of history, 9 "errors" is an amazingly (miraculously?) 
low number.  Of course Resihis chochmah Yiras Hashem, IOW lower criticism should
be used conservatively, sparingly, judiciously..

KvChT   
Rich Wolpoe

>

I actually have intended, and even started once, to write an essay on baby
wipes to publish in Techumin. Perhaps I will try again. It would be
helpful if one of our Chaverim here could tell me the Hebrew term for the
wipes!

YGB

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

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> While I do not wish to get involved in long discussions of the
> issue here,
> I will give some brief background notes:
> 
> 1. May Poskim hold there is no sechita mishum mefarek by niyar,
> including
> R' Moshe, the Har Tzvi, the Tzitz Eliezer, RSZA and the Shemiras
> Shabos
> K'Hilchoso. Even if it were an issur d'rabbonon (which these poskim
> do NOT
> hold), we shall see, b'nidon didan yesh l'hattir. 

Could you please give me mar'ei mekomot for these poskim?

<snip>
> But even if it were a d'rabbonon, the halocho is that for tzorchei
> choleh
> she'ein bo sakono one may transgress d'rabbonons on Shabbos
> (tzorech - not
> just refu'ah!). The halocho is that a tinok has the status of a
> choleh
> she'ein bo sakono. Therefore, it is permitted to use baby wipes
> even if
> one might think that it would be assur d'rabbonon to use such wipes
> (such
> as Wash and Dries) on a gadol.

Doesn't the din that a tinok is a choleh she'ein bo sakanah apply
only when you are doing something for his health?  Here, you are just
helping yourself (by avoiding using your hands & water to clean the
baby's bottom).  I agree that your argument might have validity in
the case of a diaper rash where the recommended treatment was using a
wet wipe; however, from a practical perspective, my experience is
that in those cases you should avoid wipes (which cause friction) and
instead wash the baby in the sink.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> While I do not wish to get involved in long discussions of the
> issue here,
> I will give some brief background notes:
> 
> 1. May Poskim hold there is no sechita mishum mefarek by niyar,
> including
> R' Moshe, the Har Tzvi, the Tzitz Eliezer, RSZA and the Shemiras
> Shabos
> K'Hilchoso. Even if it were an issur d'rabbonon (which these poskim
> do NOT
> hold), we shall see, b'nidon didan yesh l'hattir. 

Could you please give me mar'ei mekomot for these poskim?

<snip>
> But even if it were a d'rabbonon, the halocho is that for tzorchei
> choleh
> she'ein bo sakono one may transgress d'rabbonons on Shabbos
> (tzorech - not
> just refu'ah!). The halocho is that a tinok has the status of a
> choleh
> she'ein bo sakono. Therefore, it is permitted to use baby wipes
> even if
> one might think that it would be assur d'rabbonon to use such wipes
> (such
> as Wash and Dries) on a gadol.

Doesn't the din that a tinok is a choleh she'ein bo sakanah apply
only when you are doing something for his health?  Here, you are just
helping yourself (by avoiding using your hands & water to clean the
baby's bottom).  I agree that your argument might have validity in
the case of a diaper rash where the recommended treatment was using a
wet wipe; however, from a practical perspective, my experience is
that in those cases you should avoid wipes (which cause friction) and
instead wash the baby in the sink.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--- "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjbaker@panix.com> wrote:
> LECHATCHILAH should he read the phrase twice?
> 
> The only sources we know about this are 
> 
> 1) the MB in 685 s"k 18 suggesting that it is correct to repeat
> zeicher/zecher (an unsourced sevarah?); and

AFAIK, zeicher/zecher is repeated only for the reading of Parshat
Zachor (which may be de'oraita), not during the regular laining of
Parshat Ki Teitzei.  So the argument should go the other way: if the
known safek of zeicher/zecher is not repeated on an ordinary Shabbat,
kal vachomer dam/dom should not be repeated.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I see I still am not making myself clear. I don't believe in the
> whole concept
> of "a gadol" as you believe it. I believe that X can be greater
> than Y and
> therefore be a gadol in Y's eyes. But if gedulah is a quantitative
> and not a
> qualitative difference, then there is no absolute "a gadol".

I find it interesting to compare this to the world of tax law.  For
those unacquainted with this world, tax lawyers (rightly or wrongly)
generally think of themselves as the "brain surgeons" of the legal
profession.  The job is all about being both a "sinai" and "oker
harim."  Lots of time, we have to be "m'dameh milta l'milta" because
there isn't a ruling directly on point.  There are "gedolim" such as
Martin Ginsburg (hubby of the Supreme Court justice, and reputedly
much more brilliant) about whom people tell all sorts of "mofsim."  
The average law firm partner is quite bright (quite a few brilliant).

Interestingly, Micha's model of relative gadlus holds in the tax
world.  The average partner feels comfortable to "pasken" most
"sheilas" because he (or an associate) is able to research many cases
and articles and feel pretty sure that he has gotten the right
answer.  Once in my career, the partners were so unsure of the issue
that they called Martin Ginsburg.  I have worked with both "average"
and "brilliant" partners and have found that while the latter have
some advantage, that advantage bears a linear relationship to their
degree of brilliance.  Often (but not always), hard work makes up for
a lack of brilliance.  And sometimes, the brilliant person is wrong.

Now, should Torah study be compared to tax law?  Clearly there are
differences deriving from the fact that Torah is dvar Hashem and that
we believe that tzidkut & siyata dishmaya play a part in a person's
gadlut in Torah.  Nevertheless, there is no reason that those factors
too cannot be part of the linear relationship.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]